Skip to main content

Table 5 Comparison of the correlations between different Measures

From: Measuring recovery after open lower limb fractures: combined objective functional tests and global perceived recovery outperform narrower metrics and a standard generic patient reported outcome measure

Test 1 Comparison Test 2 N or N1/N2 p-value Reference
TUAG > APFP 272/252 0.006** As described by Glass (1996) [23]
ESST > APFP 261/252 0.022*
CGS > APFP 264/252 0.001**
FGS > APFP 264/252 0.024*
GPE > APFP 296/252 0.000***
DRI > APFP 233/252 0.001***
DRI . TUAG 233/272 0.574
DRI . ESST 233/261 0.322
DRI . CGS 233/264 0.989
DRI . FGS 233/264 0.308
DRI . GPE 233/296 0.197
TUAG . ESST 261 0.306 As described Sheshkin (2004) [24]
TUAG . CGS 263 0.302
TUAG . FGS 263 0.057
TUAG . GPE 265 0.193
ESST . CGS 257 0.071
ESST . FGS 257 0.469
ESST < GPE 255 0.033*
CGS > FGS 263 0.004**
CGS . GPE 257 0.198
FGS < GPE 257 0.011*
  1. Isolated Measure: Ankle Plantar Flexion Passive (APFP)
  2. Combined Measures: Timed up and go (TUAG), Edgren Side Step Test (ESST), comfortable and fast gait speed (CGS and FGS). PROMS: Global Perceived Effect (GPE) score and Disability Rating Index (DRI)
  3. Using the methods described by Glass (1996) and Sheshkin (2004) [23, 24] > indicates Test 1 has a greater correlation with time than Test 2,whereas < indicates Test 2 correlates better with time. N or N1/N2 are the sample sizes (i.e. how many correlations were used). N used paired correlations and N1/N2 used two independent sets of correlations, hence two sample sizes