. 2015 Oct 21;37(1):289–299. doi: 10.1002/hbm.23031

Table 3.

ANOVA with CST WM lesions as grouping variable (groups 1–4)

	Controls	Controls	VP/VLBW	VP/VLBW	ANOVA
	1. Without CST lesions	2. With CST lesions	3. Without CST lesions	4. With CST lesions
	n = 50	n = 3	n = 38	n = 18
Age, years	27.09 (0.78)	27.11 (1.07)	26.91 (0.58)	26.86 (0.67)	F(3,105) = 0.7071, P = 0.5499
Gestational age at birth, weeks	39.76 (0.94)	37.67 (1.15)	30.47 (1.87)	30.17 (1.89)	F(3,105) = 349.1, P < 0.001*
					1‐2: P = 0.09
					1‐3: P < 0.001*
					1‐4: P < 0.001*
					2‐3: P < 0.001*
					2‐4: P < 0.001*
					3‐4: P = 0.891
Birth weight, grams	3356 (473)	3007 (627)	1321 (311)	1363 (331)	F(3,105) = 222.9, P < 0.001*
					1‐2: P = 0.47
					1‐3: P < 0.0011‐4: P < 0.001
					2‐3: P < 0.001*
					2‐4: P < 0.001*
					3‐4: P = 0.98
FA	0.50 (0.02)	0.50 (0.05)	0.50 (0.02)	0.51 (0.02)	F(3,105) = 0.6359, P = 0.593
AD (10⁻³s/mm²)	1.16 (0.03)	1.19 (0.05)	1.19 (0.03)	1.21 (0.05)	F(3,105) = 8.688, P < 0.001
					1‐2: P = 0.689
					1‐3: P = 0.017*
					1‐4: P < 0.001*
					2‐3: P = 1
					2‐4: P = 0.688
					3‐4: P = 0.077
MD (10⁻³s/mm²)	0.72 (0.02)	0.74 (0.02)	0.74 (0.02)	0.75 (0.03)	F(3,105) = 6.839, P < 0.001*
					1‐2: P = 0.756
					1‐3: P = 0.032*
					1‐4: P < 0.001*
					2‐3: P = 1
					2‐4: P = 0.778
					3‐4: P = 0.182
RD (10⁻³s/mm²)	1.00 (0.04)	1.02 (0.07)	1.02 (0.05)	1.04 (0.07)	F(3,105) = 2.23, P = 0.089

When the overall ANOVA indicated a significant effect, post hoc comparisons (all combinations of subgroups) using the Tukey HSD test have also been performed. The post hoc contrasts 1–3 and 1–4 denote the difference between control subjects without visible CST lesions and VP/VLBW without (1–3), respectively VP/VLBW with CST lesions (1–4). Contrast 3–4 shows the influence of CST lesions within the VP/VLBW group. Mean (standard deviation) are also provided and significant differences are marked with asterisk.