Skip to main content

Table 3 Post hoc results of comparison between the different treatment protocols (A-B, A-C, A-D, B-C, B-D, and C-D) on leg volume as a secondary outcome

From: Comparison of intermittent pneumatic compression device and compression stockings for workers with leg edema and pain after prolonged standing: a prospective crossover clinical trial

 

Protocol

â–³ between the groups

p value

95% CI

Right

A-B

-4.85(86.12)

0.675

-32.76 ~ 23.07

A-C

-41.13(76.92)

0.002

-66.06 ~ -16.20

A-D

-5.95(78.80)

0.884

-31.49 ~ 19.59

B-C

-36.28(89.25)

0.012

-65.21 ~ -7.35

B-D

-1.10(89.57)

0.643

-30.14 ~ 27.93

C-D

35.18(73.45)

0.005

11.37 ~ 58.99

Left

A-B

-13.03(65.34)

0.270

-34.21 ~ 8.16

A-C

-51.97(70.92)

 < 0.001

-74.96 ~ -28.98

A-D

-25.51(89.32)

0.135

-54.47 ~ 3.44

B-C

-38.95(73.04)

0.004

-62.62 ~ -15.27

B-D

-12.49(74.35)

0.353

-36.59 ~ 11.61

C-D

26.46(87.74)

0.005

-1.98 ~ 54.90

  1. Data are presented as mean difference (standard deviation) (ml)
  2. Group A, no medical compression stocking (MCS) + natural rest; Group B, MCS + natural rest; Group C, no MCS + intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC); Group D, MCS + IPC; △, the difference of leg volume (ml) during T1-T2 between the different treatment protocols
  3. Wilcoxon signed rank test on difference (p < 0.008)