Skip to main content
. 2021 Jun 21;21(2):e275–e281. doi: 10.18295/squmj.2021.21.02.017

Table 2.

Comparison of urinary cotinine levels between the groups of the current study

Intervention groups Pre-intervention urinary cotinine levels Post-intervention urinary cotinine levels Difference between pre- and post-intervention
L4 L5 L6 L1 L2 L4 L5 L6 Mean ± SD Median (IQR)
Group one 0 7 13 0 0 5 13 2 0.80 ± 0.6 1 (0–2)
Group two 0 12 8 1 0 4 13 2 0.70 ± 0.3 0 (0–4)
Group three 0 14 16 0 1 2 13 4 0.85 ± 0.3 1 (0–4)
Number of subjects 0 28 37 1 1 11 39 8 Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA value (P value) 6.08 (0.4)
Percentage of subjects 0 38 62 1.7 1.7 18.3 65 13.3
Chi-squared (P value) 6.91 (0.032) 6.27 (0.9)

SD = standard deviation; IQR = interquartile range; 0 = no detectable level of tobacco use; L1 (10–30 ng/mL) and L2 (30–100 ng/mL) = no use of tobacco products; L3 (100–200ng/mL) = cut-off level and positive for tobacco use; L4 (200–500 ng/mL), L5 (500–1000ng/mL) and L6 (>1000ng/ml) = use of tobacco product; group one = laser group; group two = counselling group; group three = laser + counselling group; ANOVA = analysis of variance.