Table 3.
Stratified analysis of cTfh to cTfr ratio
| Stable group | CAD group | Total | P-value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group 1 | N | 10 | 5 | 15 | 1.000 (Group 1 vs Group 2) |
| Percentage | 66.7% | 33.3% | 0.081 (Group 1 vs Group 3) | ||
| Group 2 | N | 12 | 6 | 18 | 0.038 (Group 1 vs Group 4) |
| Percentage | 66.75 | 33.3% | 0.067 (Group 2 vs Group 3) | ||
| Group 3 | N | 6 | 11 | 17 | 0.030 (Group 2 vs Group 4) |
| Percentage | 35.3% | 64.7% | 0.718 (Group 3 vs Group 4) | ||
| Group 4 | N | 5 | 12 | 17 | |
| Percentage | 29.4% | 70.6% | |||
| Total | N | 33 | 34 | 67 | |
| Percentage | 49.3% | 50.7% | |||
| P-value | 0.046 | ||||
Group 1 (cTfh to cTfr ratio ≤ 16); Group 2 (16 < cTfh to cTfr ratio ≤ 35); Group 3 (35 < cTfh to cTfr ratio ≤ 60); Group 4 (cTfh to cTfr ratio > 60). P-value < 0.05 was shown in bold