Skip to main content
. 2022 Jun 10;22:334. doi: 10.1186/s12887-022-03388-x

Table 1.

Characterization of the study sample and data acquisition for all four evaluations

Variables analyzed Evaluation 1 (n = 33) Evaluation 2 (n = 24) Evaluation 3 (n = 15) Evaluation 4 (n = 8)
Age (Years) 10.0 (0.33) 10.8 (0.34) 11.3 (0.35) 12.2 (0.37)
Weight (Kg) 37.2 (2.4)a,b,c 41.9 (2.51) 45.6 (2.77) 48.9 (4.7)
Height (m) 1.35 (0.03) 1.41 (0.03) 1.42 (0.04) 1.42 (0.07)
BMI (Kg/m2) 19.7 (1.2) 20.8 (1.2) 22.8 (1.6) 23.8 (3.6)
MFM D1 (%) 41.5 (6.2)b,c 34.8 (6.4) 26.8 (6.8) 25.0 (7.7)
MFM D2 (%) 87.9 (2.9)c 86.7 (3.0)e 86.0 (3.2)f 81.1 (3.4)
MFM D3 (%) 87.4 (2.0) 88.4 (2.2)e 87.6 (2.4) 82.4 (2.9)
MFM Total (%) 67.3 (3.6)b,c 65.7 (3.7)e 62.3 (3.9) 58.7 (4.2)

Dynamometer (kgf)

[95%CI]

5.2 (0.72)a,b,c

[3.7 – 6.7]

3.8 (0.73)d

[2.4 – 5.3]

3.1 (0.8)

[1.6 – 4.6]

3.0 (0.9)

[1.2 – 4.8]

Modified-sphygmo (psi)

[95%CI]

3.4 (0.16)

[3.0 – 3.7]

3.3 (0.16)

[3.0 – 3.6]

3.4 (0.17)

[3.0 – 3.7]

3.6 (0.19)

[3.2 – 4.0]

Mean values and standard errors (between brackets)

n number of patients, BMI body mass index, MFM measure of motor function, D1 dimension 1 of MFM, D2 dimension 2 of MFM, D3 dimension 3 of MFM, 95%CI (95% confidence interval). Differences of least squares means (mixed effect models), p < 0.05 = a: Evaluation (Ev) 1 vs Ev2, b: Ev1 vs Ev3, c: Ev1 vs Ev4, d: Ev2 vs Ev3, e: Ev2 vs Ev4, and f: Ev3 vs Ev4