Skip to main content

Table 4 Hierarchical model with addition of Motricity Index, sensory loss and age

From: Does visuospatial neglect contribute to standing balance within the first 12 weeks post-stroke? A prospective longitudinal cohort study

 

Hierarchical models with egocentric asymmetry included as an independent variable

Dependent variable

Model

Independent variable

Covariates

AICc (change%)

β Egocentric asymmetry

(SE, 95%CI, p-value)

β Egocentric asymmetry change

β MI-LE

(SE, 95%CI, p-value)

β Sensory loss

(SE, 95%CI, p-value)

β Age

(SE, 95%CI, p-value)

BBS-s

Standard

-0.11

(0.03, [-0.17;-0.06], P < .001)*

    

385.85

Model 1

-0.11

(0.02, [-0.16;-0.07], P < .001)*

0%

0.04

(0.01, [0.03;0.05], P < .001)*

  

352.38

(-8.67%)

Model 2

-0.08

(0.04, [-0.15;-0.01], P = .027)*

-27.27%

0.03

(0.01, [0.02;0.05], P < .001)*

0.57

(0.32, [-0.07;1.20], P = .079)*

 

275.00

(-28.73%)

Model 3

-0.08

(0.04, [-0.15;-0.01], P = .029)*

-27.27%

0.03

(0.01, [0.02;0.04], P < .001)*

0.58

(0.32, [-0.07;1.22], P = .078)*

-0.01

(0.00, [-0.03; 0.02], P = .617)

277.30

(-28.13%)

COPvel-AP

Standard

-0.41

(0.17, [-0.75;0.07], P = .018)*

    

572.34

Model 1

-0.29

(0.17, [-0.63;0.06], P = .106)

-29.27%

-0.12

(0.03,[-0.18;-0.05], P < .001)*

  

563.02

(-1.63%)

Model 2

0.04

(0.15, [-0.26;0.34, P = .815)

-109.76%

-0.07

(0.03; [-0.12;-0.01], P = .021]*

-3.34

(1.00, [-5.33;-1.34], P = .001)*

 

409.72

(-28.41%)

Model 3

0.04

(0.15, [-0.26;0.34, P = .793)

-109.76%

-0.07

(0.03; [-0.13;-0.01], P = .017)*

-3.37

(1.01, [-5.37;-1.37], P = .001)*

-0.05

(0.06, [-0.16;0.07], P = .396)

411.57

(-28.09%)

 

Hierarchical models with allocentric asymmetry included as an independent variable

Dependent variable

Model

Independent variable

Covariates

AICc (change%)

  

β Allocentric asymmetry

(SE, 95%CI, p-value)

β Allocentric asymmetry change

β MI-LE

(SE, 95%CI, p-value)

β Sensory loss

(SE, 95%CI, p-value)

β Age

(SE, 95%CI, p-value)

BBS-s

Standard

-0.10

(0.03; [-0.16;-0.03]; P = .002)*

    

392.58

Model 1

-0.07

(0.03, [-0.13;-0.02], P = .008)*

-30.00%

0.04

(0.01, [0.02;0.05], P < .001)*

  

365.03

(-7.02%)

Model 2

-0.09

(0.03, [-0.15;-0.04], P = .001)*

-10.00%

0.03

(0.01, [0.01;0.04], P < .001)*

0.79

(0.31, [0.17;1.41], P = .013)*

 

269.10

(-31.45%)

Model 3

-0.09

(0.03, [-0.15;-0.04], P = .002)*

-10.00%

0.03

(0.01, [0.01;0.04], P < .001)*

0.79

(0.31, [0.17;1.41], P = .013)*

-0.00

(0.01, [-0.02;0.02], P = .724)

271.54

(-30.83%)

  1. For each dependent variable, hierarchical models are presented, starting with the standard model (no covariates and only VSN severity as independent variable) and ending with Model 3 (also including MI-LE, sensory loss and age as covariates). Abbreviations: AICc Sample size adjusted Akaike Information Criterion, BBS-s Berg Balance Scale – standing item, COPvel-AP Anteroposterior center-of-pressure velocities, Model 1 Model with VSN and motricity index scores, MI-LE Lower extremity part of the Motricity Index, Model 2 Model with VSN, Motricity index and sensory loss, Model 3 Model with VSN, motricity index, sensory loss and age, SE Standard error, β Estimate
Back to article page

BMC Neurology

ISSN: 1471-2377

Contact us