. 2022 Jul 15;9(5):3380–3392. doi: 10.1002/ehf2.14061

Table 5.

Paired t‐test of PROMIS+HF‐27 and PROMIS+HF‐10 summary scores and KCCQ scores at baseline and follow‐up in longitudinal sample

	Time	N	Mean	SD	Mean difference	Effect size (Cohen's d)	t‐test P value	Result interpretation ^a
PROMIS+HF‐27 profile
Physical health summary score	T1	75	45.4	20.9	8.3	0.42	0.0007	T2 = better domain status
	T2	75	53.7	23.6	8.3	0.42	0.0007	T2 = better domain status
Mental health summary score	T1	75	60.1	23.1	4.6	0.25	0.0334	T2 = better domain status
	T2	75	64.7	22.7	4.6	0.25	0.0334	T2 = better domain status
Social health summary score	T1	75	45.9	25.0	2.5	0.10	0.4005	No significant time difference
	T2	75	48.4	28.3	2.5	0.10	0.4005	No significant time difference
Overall health summary score	T1	75	49.2	20.4	5.9	0.35	0.0036	T2 = better domain status
	T2	75	55.1	22.2	5.9	0.35	0.0036	T2 = better domain status
PROMIS+HF‐10 profile
Physical health summary score	T1	75	47.0	20.9	7.6	0.40	0.0009	T2 = better domain status
	T2	75	54.6	22.0	7.6	0.40	0.0009	T2 = better domain status
Mental health summary score	T1	75	60.7	23.3	4.0	0.18	0.1221	No significant time difference
	T2	75	64.7	24.4	4.0	0.18	0.1221	No significant time difference
Social health summary score	T1	75	46.3	26.3	0.7	0.02	0.8422	No significant time difference
	T2	75	47.0	29.3	0.7	0.02	0.8422	No significant time difference
Overall health summary score	T1	75	50.2	19.5	5.0	0.29	0.0159	T2 = better domain status
	T2	75	55.2	20.9	5.0	0.29	0.0159	T2 = better domain status

SD, standard deviation.

^{^a}

Interpretation of results of statistical t‐test.