Identifying subgroups of patients using latent class analysis: should we use a single-stage or a two-stage approach? A methodological study using a cohort of patients with low back pain

Table 6 Patient subgroup membership comparison

	Two-stage patient subgroups
Single-stage patient subgroups		TS 1	TS 2	TS 3	TS 4	TS 5	TS 6	TS 7	TS 8	TS 9	Total
	SS 1 (dark blue)	26^c,d	79^a	27^c,d	36^b,e	0	14^d	3	6^d	1	192
	SS 2 (red)	0	69^a,e	4	2	0	31^b,d,e	29^b,e	19^b	0	154
	SS 3 (green)	113^a,e	3	13^d	4	2	0	0	1	0	136
	SS 4 (purple)	17^c	3	30^c,d	28^c,d	33^a	1	12^d	8^d	0	132
	SS 5 (turquoise)	4	4	44^a,e	14^c,d	12^d	20^c,d	29^b	2	1	130
	SS 6 (orange)	56^a	0	6	5	22^c,d,e	0	0	0	20^c	109
	SS 7 (light blue)	3	3	3	24^c,d	2	3	1	9^c	27^a,e	75
	Total	219	161	127	113	71	69	74	45	49	928

SS single-stage patient subgroup, TS two-stage patient subgroup
^aThe largest subgroup in each row. ^bThe largest subgroup in each column (if different from the largest subgroup in each row). ^cThe number of patients covers more than 10% of the row and/or column subgroup (but is not the largest subgroup). ^dThe number of patients covers more than 10% of the column subgroup (but is not the largest subgroup). ^ePatient subgroups with similar clinical descriptions

ISSN: 1471-2474