Skip to main content
. 2020 Apr 13;21:237. doi: 10.1186/s12891-020-03260-y

Table 3.

The comparisons of impairment and participation restriction variables among phenotypes

Cluster 1 (3)
(N = 79)
Cluster 2 (4)
(N = 67)
Cluster 3 (2)
(N = 76)
Cluster 4 (1)
(N = 28)
p-valuea
Pain scale: Mean ± SD 3.88 ± 2.68 4.06 ± 2.44 4.82 ± 2.61 5.18 ± 3.20 0.012*
FPROM (degree): Mean ± SD 131.22 ± 9.92 127.69 ± 12.62 123.42 ± 16.93 118.96 ± 24.58 0.001*
EPROM (degree): Mean ± SD 3.19 ± 4.92 5.48 ± 5.73 5.25 ± 5.95 5.64 ± 6.18 0.032*
Knee flexor muscle power: Median (Q1, Q3) 4 (4,5) 4 (4,5) 4 (3.25,5) 4 (4,5) 0.003
Knee extensor muscle power: Median (Q1, Q3) 5 (4,5) 5 (4,5) 4 (4,5) 5 (4,5) <  0.001
Acquisition of good and service: Median (Q1, Q3) 1 (0,2) 2 (1,2) 2 (2,3.75) 3 (2,4) <  0.001
Community life: Median (Q1, Q3) 1 (0,2) 2 (1,2) 2 (2,3) 3 (1,4) <  0.001

ap-values of the Kruskal-Wallis test

Abbreviation: FPROM Flexion passive range of motion, EPROM Extension passive range of motion. *different among clusters at p < .05