Table 2.

Univariate and multivariate analyses for predictors of percentage change in MBF from baseline and time to vasoconstriction

Independent predictorsUnivariate PMultivariate model P
Percentage of change in MBF from baseline   
 Type of thermal stimulus <.0001 <.0001 
 Diagnosis (SCD/control) .02 .019 
 Age .18 — 
 Sex .13 — 
 Hb .12 — 
 STAI-Y1 score .9 — 
 STAI-Y2 score .72 — 
 PASS score .06 .026 
Time to vasoconstriction   
 Type of thermal stimulus .07 — 
 Diagnosis (SCD/control) .02 .033 
 Age .85 — 
 Sex .1 — 
 Hb .006 — 
 STAI-Y1 score .002 .007 
 STAI-Y2 score .24 — 
 PASS score .72 — 
Independent predictorsUnivariate PMultivariate model P
Percentage of change in MBF from baseline   
 Type of thermal stimulus <.0001 <.0001 
 Diagnosis (SCD/control) .02 .019 
 Age .18 — 
 Sex .13 — 
 Hb .12 — 
 STAI-Y1 score .9 — 
 STAI-Y2 score .72 — 
 PASS score .06 .026 
Time to vasoconstriction   
 Type of thermal stimulus .07 — 
 Diagnosis (SCD/control) .02 .033 
 Age .85 — 
 Sex .1 — 
 Hb .006 — 
 STAI-Y1 score .002 .007 
 STAI-Y2 score .24 — 
 PASS score .72 — 

The parameters found to be significant by univariate analysis (P < .2; in bold) were used as covariates in the multivariate repeated-measures ANOVA. A stepwise estimation was used to arrive at the final multivariate model shown, with significance level P < .05 (in bold).

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal