Table 3.
Assessment of changes in endurance performance with MCID classification vs. T2D classification.
| Contingency Table of Binary Classifiers | T2D (Median Split) | ∑ | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Absolute Frequencies) | Below Average (<MED) | Above Average (>MED) | ||
| MCID (MCID adj.) | <30m | 188 (230) a | 76 (36) b | 264 (266) |
| >30m | 105 (63) c | 206 (246) d | 311 (309) | |
| Total (∑) | 293 | 282 | 575 | |
| MCID vs. T2D: Gamma = 0.658 ***, Kappa = 0.371 ***, McNemar: p = 0.037 * (MCID adjusted vs. T2D: Gamma = 0.923 ***, Kappa = 0.656 ***, McNemar: p = 0.009 **) Significance level: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 | ||||
a Non-responder (no improvement): 32.7% (40.0%); b ceiling effect due to already good 6MWT performance at baseline (MCID can be evaluated here as false negative): 13.2% (6.3%); c floor effect due to poor 6MWT performance at t1 that improved at t2 in a way that is not relevant to health (MCID false positive): 18.3% (11.0%); d responder (clinically important improvement): 35.8% (42.8%); cf. Figure 2 (MCID vs. T2D).