Table 3.
Comparision of wave latencies between study and control group
| Wave | Study group latency (n = 70) | Control group latency (n = 100) | P value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||
| I | 1.7328 | 0.14489 | 1.6625 | 0.21997 | 0.020 (S) |
| III | 3.7981 | 0.12203 | 3.7490 | 0.16585 | 0.027 (S) |
| V | 5.7177 | 0.17568 | 5.6424 | 0.19486 | 0.011 (S) |
| I–III | 2.0672 | 0.16500 | 2.0837 | 0.21511 | 0.592 (NS) |
| III–V | 1.9211 | 0.20590 | 1.8986 | 0.25035 | 0.522 (NS) |
| I–V | 4.0011 | 0.20656 | 3.9832 | 0.29529 | 0.642 (NS) |
Table 3 showing absolute latencies of wave I, III and V of cases showed statistically significant prolongation when compared with control group and the P values for absolute latencies of wave I, III and V were 0.020, 0.027 and 0.011 respectively
Despite of abnormalities present in the study group, ABR interpeak latencies in the study group were not significantly prolonged from the control group and the P values for interpeak latencies between waves I–III, III–V and I–V were 0.592, 0.522 and 0.642 respectively
S significant. So statistically there is a significant difference between the cases and controls; NS not significant. There is no statistical significant difference between the groups