The Spinal Cord Injury

Falls Concern Scale is a standardised questionnaire that asks participants to rate their concern about falling when performing 16 common tasks such as dressing or pushing a wheelchair (Boswell-Ruys et al 2010a). Each task is rated on a 4-point Likert-style scale anchored at one end with ‘not at all concerned’ and at the other end with ‘very concerned’. In addition, experimental participants were asked to rate the ‘inconvenience’ of the training on a 10-cm visual analogue scale anchored at one end with ‘extremely inconvenient’ and at the other end with Vandetanib in vivo ‘not at all inconvenient’. Power calculations were based on the results of two studies: one a clinical trial (Boswell-Ruys et al 2010b), the other a study of the psychometric properties of the scales used in this study (Boswell-Ruys et al 2009).

The current study was, however, powered for only the three primary outcomes using the best available estimates of standard deviation and where necessary predicted initial scores (ie, an initial score of 250 mm and SD of 50 mm for the Maximal Lean Test, an initial score of 100 and SD of 15 mm for the Maximal Sideward Reach Test, and selleck kinase inhibitor a SD of 2 points for the COPM). The power calculations assumed a drop-out rate of 5%, a power of 80%, an alpha of 0.05, and a strong correlation (0.8) between initial and final values. All statistical analyses were performed using the principle of ‘intention to treat’ although a secondary exploratory analysis was also performed excluding data from participants who completed less than 17 of the 18 training sessions. All data are reported as means (SD) unless otherwise stated. Data for the Maximal Lean Test, Maximal Sideward Reach Test, T-shirt Test, and Spinal Cord Injury Falls Concern Scale were analysed with a factorial analysis of covariance using a linear regression approach. The

Performance Item Ketanserin of the COPM, the Satisfaction Item of the COPM, Participants’ Impressions of Change, and Clinicians’ Impressions of Change data were analysed using the ‘cendif’ routine in Stata softwarea to derive the 95% CIs for median betweengroup differences. This method does not make assumptions about the distribution of the data. Significance for all tests was set at p < 0.05, but all data were interpreted with respect to pre-determined clinically meaningful change. Thirty-two people with recently acquired paraplegia were recruited from the Moorong Spinal Cord Injury Unit in Australia (n = 16) and the Centre for the Rehabilitation of the Paralyzed in Bangladesh (n = 16). The flow of participants through the trial is shown in Figure 2. Outcomes were attained for all variables on all participants with the following two exceptions: data for one participant were missing for Clinicians’ Perceptions of Change (due to problems with the video clip) and data for one participant were incomplete for the Maximal Lean Test due to the participant’s inability to tolerate the test.