Table 3.
GEE Modeling of Stimulated Parotid Salivary Flow Rate with Time-Contralateral Gland
| Time | SPFR | 95% CI | Robust SE | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Model 1a | ||||
| Visit 2 | −0.015 | −0.087, 0.057 | −0.015 | 0.677 |
| Visit 3 | −0.135 | −0.235, −0.034 | −0.135 | 0.009* |
| Visit 4 | −0.081 | −0.223, 0.061 | −0.081 | 0.262 |
| Visit 5 | −0.067 | −0.181, 0.047 | −0.067 | 0.251 |
| Visit 6 | −0.124 | −0.209, −0.038 | −0.124 | 0.005* |
| Visit 7 | 0.023 | −0.072, 0.118 | 0.023 | 0.636 |
| Visit 8 | −0.061 | −0.128, 0.007 | −0.061 | 0.079 |
| Visit 9 | −0.099 | −0.252, 0.054 | −0.099 | 0.204 |
| Visit 10 | −0.134 | −0.264, −0.004 | −0.134 | 0.043* |
| Visit 11 | 0.028 | −0.057, 0.113 | 0.028 | 0.520 |
| Visit 12 | −0.121 | −0.272, 0.031 | −0.121 | 0.118 |
| Visit 13 | 0.049 | −0.035, 0.133 | 0.049 | 0.255 |
| Visit 14 | −0.145 | −0.291, 0.001 | −0.145 | 0.051 |
| Visit 15 (follow-up 1) | −0.099 | −0.244, 0.046 | −0.099 | 0.179 |
| Visit 16 (follow-up 2) | 0.034 | −0.086, 0.155 | 0.034 | 0.576 |
|
| ||||
| Model 1b | ||||
|
| ||||
| Time | 0.001 | −0.003, 0.005 | 0.002 | 0.666 |
|
| ||||
| Model 2a | ||||
|
| ||||
| Peak 1 | −0.058 | −0.142, 0.026 | 0.043 | 0.177 |
| Follow-up 1 | −0.110 | −0.264, 0.044 | 0.079 | 0.163 |
| Follow-up 2 | 0.046 | −0.083, 0.175 | 0.066 | 0.489 |
|
| ||||
| Model 2b | ||||
|
| ||||
| Time | 0.002 | −0.047, 0.051 | 0.025 | 0.940 |
SPFR: Stimulated parotid gland salivary flow rate. Estimates rounded to three decimal places.
statistically significant. Model 1a: In the contralateral gland, the stimulated parotid flow was lower at most visits compared to the baseline rate, with a statistically significant decline in flow rate at visits 3, 6, and 10. The slight increase in flow rate at visits 7, 11 and 16 was not of statistical significance; visit 1 is reference (baseline). Model 1b: There was no significant change in stimulated parotid salivary flow rate with each sequential visit in the contralateral gland. Model 2a: In the contralateral gland, stimulated parotid salivary flow rate at peak 1, follow-up 1 and follow-up 2 visits were compared to baseline flow rates and the change in flow rates was not of statistical significance. Model 2b: Comparing only the peak, follow-up 1 and follow-up 2 flow rates to the baseline flow rate, there was no significant change in stimulated parotid salivary flow rate with each sequential visit in the contralateral gland.