Table 3.
Variable/outcome | Hypothesis | Outcome measure (type of outcome) | Methods of analysis |
1. Primary
|
FES intervention (I) is better than conventional therapy control (C). | SCIM-SC subscale score. | ANCOVA. |
2. Secondary
|
I is better than C. | SCIM mobility subscale score. | ANCOVA. |
|
I is better than C. | GRASSP subscales: Strength total score. Sensibility total score. Qualitative prehension total score. Quantitative prehension total score. |
ANCOVA. |
|
I is better than C. | TRI-HFT subscales: Object manipulation score. Wooden block score. Cylinder torque. Credit card force. Wooden bar displacement length. |
ANCOVA. |
|
I is better than C. | SCI-QOL subscales: Basic mobility score. Fine motor score. Manual wheelchair score. Power wheelchair score. Self-care score. Independence score. Pain behaviour score. Pain interference score. Satisfaction with social roles and activities score. |
ANCOVA. |
|
I is better than C. | Serious and non-serious adverse events, total number of each per group. | Descriptive. |
|
Reduced healthcare resource utilisation with I compared with C. | Healthcare resource utilisation questionnaire, total number of minutes. | ANCOVA. |
3. Sensitivity analyses:
|
Results of analysis of primary analysis will remain robust. | SCIM-SC score. | ANCOVA with multivariable analysis for adjusted analysis. |
Important remarks:
|
ANCOVA, analysis of covariance; C, control; FES, functional electrical stimulation; GRASSP, Graded Redefined Assessment of Strength, Sensibility and Prehension; I, intervention; LOCF, last observation carried forward; QOL, quality of life; SCIM, Spinal Cord Independence Measure III; SCIM-SC, Spinal Cord Independence Measure III self-care sub-scale; SCI-QOL, Spinal Cord Injury-Quality of Life; TRI-HFT, Toronto Rehab Institute Hand Function Test.