EasyManua.ls Logo

Abbott Proclaim 3667 - Secondary Effectiveness Findings

Abbott Proclaim 3667
80 pages
Print Icon
To Next Page IconTo Next Page
To Next Page IconTo Next Page
To Previous Page IconTo Previous Page
To Previous Page IconTo Previous Page
Loading...
52
Figure 10. Main overall VAS score with 95% CI by visit (left) and by stimulation mode (right)
Secondary Effectiveness
The following table compares responder rates for burst stimulation versus tonic stimulation, where
"responder rate" is defined as a decrease in the overall daily VAS score from baseline by at least
30%. A total of 69 subjects (69%) responded to tonic stimulation, burst stimulation, or both.
Responder rates are 60.0% with burst stimulation and 51.0% with tonic stimulation. A cross-
tabulation of responders for burst stimulation versus tonic stimulation shows numerically more
subjects whose VAS score decreased by at least 30% with burst stimulation than with tonic
stimulation (18 versus 9). However, this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.083).
Table 30. Responder rates (decrease of 30% from baseline) for overall daily VAS score
Overall Responder Rate
Percent of burst subjects (n/N) 60.0% (60/100)
Percent of tonic subjects (n/N) 51.0% (51/100)
Cross-Tabulation of Responders by Stimulation Mode
Stimulation mode
Tonic
Responder No Yes
Burst
No 31/100 (31.0%) 9/100 (9.0%)
Yes 18/100 (18.0%) 42/100 (42.0%)
p
-value (Burst vs. Tonic)
0.083
m
m
McNemar’s test

Table of Contents

Related product manuals