Table 3.
Between treatment comparison of distinct trajectory class distributions of patients treated with tDCS + placebo, escitalopram + sham tDCS, and placebo + sham tDCS over 10 weeks.
| N (%) | tDCS vs. placebo | tDCS vs. escitalopram | Escitalopram vs. placebo | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trajectory | tDCS + placebo | Escitalopram + sham tDCS | Placebo + sham tDCS | OR | P | PFDR | OR | P | PFDR | OR | P | PFDR |
| Rapid | 36 (38.3) | 41 (45.05) | 14 (23.33) | 0.49 (0.23–1) | 0.050 | 0.113 | 1.32 (0.74–2.38) | 0.351 | 0.451 | 2.69 (1.33–5.71) | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Slow | 32 (34.04) | 43 (47.25) | 26 (43.33) | 1.48 (0.76–2.89) | 0.247 | 0.371 | 1.74 (0.96–3.16) | 0.067 | 0.120 | 1.17 (0.61–2.27) | 0.636 | 0.636 |
| No/minimal | 26 (27.66) | 7 (7.69) | 20 (33.33) | 1.31 (0.64–2.64) | 0.455 | 0.511 | 0.22 (0.08–0.51) | <0.001 | 0.001 | 0.17 (0.06–0.41) | <0.001 | 0.001 |
Results from generalized linear model (GLM) to compare odds for class membership between treatment arms; P values were FDR adjusted to control the false discovery rate.
r reference category, OR odds ratio with 95% CI in parenthesis.
Bold values represent statistically significant results.