Table 3.
Results of the linear regression analysis and post-hoc tests for type of feedback
| Linear regression | Post-hoc multiple comparisons for type of FB | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fixed effects | p-value | Comparison | Estimated differences between groups (95% CI) | p-value |
| Waiter’s bow | ||||
| Initial model | ||||
| Health status | 0.09 | |||
| Type of FB | < 0.0001 | |||
| Joint | 0.01 | |||
| Baseline score kinematics | 0.06 | |||
| Health status*type of FB | 0.61 | |||
| Health status*Joint | 0.71 | |||
| Type of FB*Joint | 0.94 | |||
| Final model | ||||
| Type of FB | < 0.0001 | Mirror minus Control | 0.6 (− 3.1 to 4.4) | 0.91 |
| Joint | 0.04 | Sensor minus Control | 10.6 (6.8 to 14.3) | < 0.0001a |
| Sensor minus Mirror | 9.9 (6.1 to 13.7) | < 0.0001a | ||
| Lifting task | ||||
| Initial model | ||||
| Health status | 0.20 | |||
| Type of FB | < 0.0001 | |||
| Joint | 0.029 | |||
| Baseline score kinematics | 0.003 | |||
| Health status*type of FB | 0.65 | |||
| Health status*Joint | 0.44 | |||
| Type of FB*Joint | 0.57 | |||
| Final model | ||||
| Type of FB | < 0.0001 | Mirror minus Control | −0.3 (− 3.7 to 3.0) | 0.97 |
| Joint | 0.02 | Sensor minus Control | 6.9 (3.5 to 10.2) | < 0.0001a |
| Baseline score kinematics | 0.002 | Sensor minus Mirror | 7.2 (3.8 to 10.6) | < 0.0001a |
FB Feedback, Health status healthy of CLBP, Joint lumbar spine or hip, Type of FB sensor, mirror or control
ain favour of the sensor group