Period and carry-over effects and follow-up results
Statistical analyses did not reveal significant period effects.
Against the background of limited statistical power, this
indicates that the general state of the participants during
the intervention did not considerably change. As all participants
were in a chronic stage of their iSCI, this result
was anticipated.
Statistically, we could also not detect any carry-over or
treatment by period interaction. This means that either
there is no carry-over, which is very unlikely since the
intermediate measurement results differed from baseline
measurement results, meaning that “baseline” values before
the second intervention were different from baseline
measures before the first intervention; or it means that
carry-over was comparable for both interventions, and,
therefore, insignificant for the interpretation of the achieved
results.
The results of the follow-up measurement were doubleedged.
On the one hand, there were only a few outcome
measures that improved over the course of the whole
Labruyère and van Hedel Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation 2014, 11:4 Page 9 of 12
http://www.jneuroengrehab.com/content/11/1/4
study (from baseline to follow-up). On the other hand, no
outcome measure got worse from the end of interventions
to follow-up. This would be especially valuable for those
outcome measures that improved during the training
phase, which are outcomes reflecting increased motor
capacity and performance (10MWT at preferred speed,
LEMS and SCIM). However, the inability to detect clear
differences could be due to the low power of this study.
Please note that the follow-up results do not allow a differentiation
between the 2 interventions.