Skip to main content
. 2016 Aug 26;18(8):e231. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5695

Table 2.

Primary outcome analysis with observed dataa.


iTAU (a)
mean (SD)
CSG (b)
mean (SD)
LITG (c)
mean (SD)
g
(a-b)
P
(a-b)
B
(95% CI)
(a-b)
g
(a-c)
P
(a-c)
B
(95% CI)
(a-c)
g
(b-c)
P
(b-c)
B
(95% CI)
(b-c)
BDI-II n=67 n=57 n=64








Time 0 21.76
(5.39)
22.59
(4.78)
21.73
(4.83)









Time 1 17.91
(11.06)
16.59
(10.60)
17.08
(10.24)
0.12 .444 -1.15
(-4.08
to 1.79)
0.08 .634 -0.71
(-3.61
to 2.20)
-0.05 .764 0.44
(-2.45
to 3.34)
Adjusted



.359 -1.35
(-4.23
to 1.54)

.613 -0.74
(-3.60
to 2.12)

.674 0.61
(-2.23
to 3.45)
Time 2 18.12
(12.15)
14.27
(10.00)
13.56
(11.56)
0.34 .007 -4.22
(-7.28
to -1.16)
0.38 .005 -4.34
(-7.36
to -1.33)
0.07 .938 -0.12
(-3.14
to 2.90)
Adjusted



.003 -4.55
(-7.56
to -1.55)

.004 -4.31
(-7.27
to -1.35)

.862 0.26
(-2.70
to 3.22)
Time 3 16.72
(10.97)
11.53
(10.72)
11.39
(10.96)
0.48 .001 -5.10
(-8.20
to -1.99)
0.48 .003 -4.62
(-7.66
to -1.58)
0.01 .758 0.48
(-2.57
to 3.54)
Adjusted



<.001 -5.47
(-8.51
to -2.42)

.002 -4.62
(-7.61
to -1.63)

.574 0.86
(-2.14
to 3.85)

ag: Hedge’s g as an effect size measure; B: regression coefficients; adjusted: adjusted analysis controlling baseline, sex, and age; a-b: iTAU vs CSG comparison; a-c: iTAU vs LITG comparison; b-c: CSG vs LITG comparison.