. 2018 Mar 13;20(4):659–671. doi: 10.1111/jch.13251

Table 3.

Analysis of sex‐related independent differences in cfPWV levels (ANCOVA)

	cfPWV after adjustment value, m/s						95% CI for mean difference		Covariates in the model were evaluated at the following values
	MV ± SE	Lower limit	Upper limit	P value	Mean difference	SE difference	Lower limit	Upper limit	Age, y	BMI, kg/m²	Total cholesterol, mg/dL	Hematocrit, %	MBP, mm Hg
Model 1
Male	6.59 ± 0 .032	6.522	6.649	0.002	0.165	0.052	0.063	0.268	35.89	–	–	–	89.538
Female	6.40 ± 0.040	6.342	6.498	0.002	0.165	0.052	0.063	0.268	35.89	–	–	–	89.538
Model 2
Male	6.588 ± 0.033	6.523	6.653	0.003	0.167	0.055	0.058	0.275	35.89	23.424	156.39	40.78	89.55
Female	6.422 ± 0.041	6.341	6.503	0.003	0.167	0.055	0.058	0.275	35.89	23.424	156.39	40.78	89.55

ANCOVA, analysis of covariance; BMI, body mass index; cfPWV, carotid‐femoral pulse wave velocity; CI, confidence interval; MV, mean value; SE, standard error.

P value obtained using unpaired two‐tailed test comparing male and female groups. Model 1 adjusted for age and mean blood pressure (MBP) as performed by Boutouyrie et al (2010). Model 2: adjusted by cofactors determined in Table 2, avoiding variables that introduced error by collinearity (simple and point‐biseral correlation analysis).