Page 79 - AN-3-2

Advanced Neurology Neuropathy-reduced balance and gait

criteria for evaluating effect size were as follows: d < 0.2 for data, average H-index, and foot sole sensitivity scores for
very small, 0.2 ≤ d < 0.5 for small, 0.5 ≤ d < 0.8 for medium, each group are presented in Table 1.
and d ≥ 0.8 for large effects.
3.2. Significant group differences and significant
To assess the relationship between the main clinical discriminant
symptoms, postural control, and functional gait variables,
Pearson product correlations were calculated within each The one-way MANOVA analysis indicated a significant
group. The correlation coefficients for each group within difference between the groups (F 4,30 = 3.752, P = 0.014,
2
the variables under assessment were compared using 95% partial η = 0.333). The discriminant analysis revealed that
confidence intervals (CI). A correlation was deemed the centroid locations of each group had the most separation
25
significantly different from zero if the CI range did not for the linear discriminant function 1. In contrast, there
include zero. was no significant separation with linear discriminant
function 2 (Figure 2). The primary determinant driving this
3. Results separation was V with 6MWD and TUG contributing as
avg,
secondary determinants for linear discriminant function
3.1. Demographic characteristics 1 (Table 2).
Thirty-eight participants (19 females and 19 males) were Multiple univariate one-way ANOVAs with an
recruited for this study. However, three individuals (one LSD adjustment were performed after a significant
female and two males) were excluded from the data MANOVA. There was a significant difference observed
analysis due to the inability to identify the onset of the for V (F = 5.344; P = 0.010; partial η = 0.250). There
2
avg
2
M- and H-waves in their lateral gastrocnemius muscles. were no statistically significant differences observed for
To study the differential effects of the two most SD (F = 0.370; P = 0.694; partial η = 0.023), 6MWD
2
AP
2
significant movement-related symptoms on postural (F = 2.098; P = 0.139; partial η = 0.116), and TUG
2
2
control and functional gait, participants were grouped (F =1.749; P = 0.190; partial η = 0.099).
2
2
based on the severity of reduced foot sole sensitivity and
slowed conduction velocity. Initially, participants were 3.3. Main postural control and functional gait
grouped based on their foot sole sensitivity scores, which outcome group differences
ranged from 0 – 5 to 6 – 10. The group with more severe Pairwise comparisons using LSD post hoc analysis were
sensation loss (0 – 5) exhibited a maximum H-index of just conducted on the postural control and functional gait
2
below 78 cm /ms . Subsequently, within the group showing parameters (Figure 3A-D). Significant differences were
2
less foot sole sensitivity loss (6 – 10), participants were observed between groups LA and SA for V (P = 0.003;
avg
further subdivided into two groups based on their H-index d = 1.291). Effect sizes were calculated for each pairwise
scores: those with H-index values less and greater than comparison, and the results are displayed in Figure 3E.
78 cm /ms . This categorization resulted in three groups: Very small effect sizes were observed between LA and MA
2
2
Group 1, classified as less affected (LA) by the pathology (d = 0.172) for 6MWD and SD (d = 0.019). Small effect
AP
(foot sole sensitivity 6 – 10, H-index ≥78 cm /ms ); Group 2, sizes were observed between LA and MA (d = 0.415), MA
2
2
categorized as moderately affected (MA) by the pathology and SA (d = 0.290) for TUG, LA and SA (d = 0.280), and
2
2
(foot sole sensitivity 6 – 10, H-index <78 cm /ms ); and MA and SA (d = 0.329) for SD . Medium effect sizes were
AP
Group 3, designated as SA by the pathology (foot sole observed for LA and SA (d = 0.792), MA and SA (d = 0.601)
sensitivity 0 – 5, H-index <78 cm /ms ). Anthropometric for 6MWD, as well as LA and MA for V . Large effect sizes
2
2
avg
Table 1. Means and standard errors of individual group characteristics
Group LA (range) MA (range) SA (range)
Age (years old) 73±2 (65 – 81) 74±2 (67 – 84) 73±1 (66 – 81)
Sex (N) 7 females/3 males 7 females/5 males 4 females/9 males
Body mass (kg) 68.4±3.5 (45 – 81) 77.2±4.1 (51 – 100) 95.2±6.5 (65 – 140)
Height (m) 1.62±0.02 (1.53 – 1.71) 1.65±0.02 (1.55 – 1.78) 1.73±0.03 (1.55 – 1.88)
BMI (kg/m ) 26.1±1.4 (18.2 – 32.1) 28.2±1.2 (21.3 – 33.3) 31.3±1.4 (22.6 – 40)
2
H-index (cm /ms ) 89.7±3.4 (78.0 – 109.4) 60.2±3.4 (42.8 – 76.6) 61.8±2.1 (45.6 – 75.5)
2
2
Foot sole sensitivity 8.6±0.5 (6 – 10) 8.7±0.5 (6 – 10) 2.2±0.6 (0 – 5)
Abbreviations: BMI: Body mass index; LA: Less affected group; MA: Moderately affected group; SA: Severely affected group.
Volume 3 Issue 2 (2024) 4 doi: 10.36922/an.2900