Evaluating the Measurement Properties of the Self-Assessment of Treatment Version II, Follow-Up Version, in Patients with Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
Table 4
(a) Known-groups validity—SAT II follow-up scores by BPI-DN item 5 scores at weeks 8 and 12. (b) Known-groups validity—SAT II follow-up scores by BPI-DN item 9F scores at weeks 8 and 12.
(a)
SAT II follow-up scores
BPI-DN item 5
( value)
0–<4 , mean (SD)1
4–6 , mean (SD)
>6–10 , mean (SD)
Week 8
Pain improvement
124, 2.15 (1.33)
100, 1.00 (1.20)
111, 0.57 (0.86)
59.14
1, 2, 3
Impact summary
123, 1.77 (1.35)
100, 0.92 (1.04)
109, 0.57 (0.83)
35.74
1, 2
Treatment continuation
122, 3.09 (1.13)
99, 2.63 (1.23)
109, 2.45 (1.26)
8.77
1, 2
Treatment comparison
122, 3.18 (0.90)
99, 2.57 (0.86)
109, 2.25 (0.75)
36.99
1, 2, 3
Week 12
Pain improvement
116, 2.06 (1.49)
109, 0.87 (1.15)
92, 0.37 (0.67)
57.27
1, 2, 3
Impact summary
115, 1.64 (1.35)
108, 0.87 (1.11)
91, 0.54 (0.86)
26.05
1, 2
Treatment continuation
115, 3.17 (1.07)
108, 2.35 (1.39)
91, 2.22 (1.50)
16.33
1, 2
Treatment comparison
113, 2.97 (0.94)
108, 2.46 (0.96)
90, 2.21 (0.92)
17.62
1, 2
SAT II mean scores and SD for patients with a BPI-DN item 5 score within the specified range. An analysis of variance (ANOVA). Pairwise comparisons between means were performed using Scheffé’s test adjusting for multiple comparisons; 1 = 0–3 versus 4–6; 2 = 0–3 versus 7–10; 3 = 4–6 versus 7–10; , , and .
(b)
SAT II follow-up scores
BPI-DN item 9F
Overall value (-value)
Pairwise comparisons
0–3 , mean
4–6 , mean
7–10 , mean
Week 8
Pain improvement
186, 1.73 (1.41)
86, 0.95 (1.14)
63, 0.41 (0.66)
30.80
1, 2, 3
Impact summary
184, 1.49 (1.34)
85, 0.81 (0.93)
63, 0.46 (0.71)
23.21
1, 2
Treatment continuation
182, 2.97 (1.17)
85, 2.45 (1.27)
63, 2.46 (1.24)
7.55
1, 2
Treatment comparison
182, 2.97 (0.92)
85, 2.49 (0.88)
63, 2.14 (0.69)
23.91
1, 2
Week 12
Pain improvement
176, 1.66 (1.49)
79, 0.61 (1.01)
62, 0.45 (0.74)
31.00
1, 2
Impact summary
175, 1.37 (1.34)
77, 0.72 (1.01)
62, 0.58 (0.84)
14.55
1, 2
Treatment continuation
175, 2.85 (1.28)
77, 2.34 (1.39)
62, 2.27 (1.51)
6.23
1, 2
Treatment comparison
172, 2.84 (0.95)
77, 2.38 (0.93)
62, 2.08 (0.95)
17.20
1, 2
SAT II mean scores and SD for patients with a BPI-DN item 9F score within the specified range. An analysis of variance (ANOVA). Pairwise comparisons between means were performed using Scheffé’s test adjusting for multiple comparisons; 1 = 0–3 versus 4–6; 2 = 0–3 versus 7–10; 3 = 4–6 versus 7–10; , , and .
