Skip to main content
. 2015 Nov 4;32(4):303–307. doi: 10.1016/j.joa.2015.09.006

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Comparison of the Group P subgroups with Group A. Group P was classified into three sub-groups based on the number of implantations. Group P1 included the institutes in which less than 14 devices per year were implanted. Institutes at which 15–29 implantations were performed were classified as Group P2. The institutes at which more than 30 implantations were performed were classified as Group P3. The infection rate of Group P2 was 2.11%, and it was higher than that of the other groups and the infection rate in the US in 1996 [4]; dotted line. The infection rate in Group P2 was compared with that of the other groups using logistic regression analysis. The results of the analysis showed the inferiority of Group P2 to Group P3 with respect to the infection rate. However, no statistically significant difference was observed after Bonferroni correction.

HHS Vulnerability Disclosure