| Group |
N |
Missing |
Median |
25% |
75% |
| Lam. Pre. |
37 |
0 |
3.00 |
2.00 |
3.00 |
| Lam. 1W |
37 |
0 |
2.00 |
2.00 |
3.00 |
| Lam. 2w |
37 |
0 |
1.00 |
1.00 |
2.00 |
| Lam. 3w |
37 |
0 |
1.00 |
0.00 |
1.00 |
| Lam. 3m |
37 |
0 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
1.00 |
| Lam. 6m |
37 |
0 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
H=117.6 with 5 degrees of freedom. (P=<0.0001).
The differences in the median values among the follow-up groups are greater
than would be expected by chance; there is a statistically significant difference
(P=1.03E-023).
All pairwise multiple comparison procedures (Student-Newman-Keuls method): |
| Comparison |
Diff of Ranks |
p |
q |
P<0.05 |
| Lam. Pre. vs. Lam.6m |
4538.0 |
6 |
11.62 |
Yes |
| Lam. Pre. vs. Lam. 3m |
4060.5 |
5 |
12.47 |
Yes |
| Lam. Pre. vs. Lam. 3w |
2877.0 |
4 |
11.03 |
Yes |
| Lam. Pre. vs. Lam. 2w |
1976.5 |
3 |
10.10 |
Yes |
| Lam. Pre. vs. Lam. 1w |
624.0 |
2 |
4.77 |
Yes |
| Lam. 1w vs. Lam.6m |
3914.0 |
5 |
12.02 |
Yes |
| Lam. 1w vs. Lam. 3m |
3436.5 |
4 |
13.18 |
Yes |
| Lam. 1w vs. Lam. 3w |
2253.0 |
3 |
11.51 |
Yes |
| Lam. 1w vs. Lam. 2w |
1352.5 |
2 |
10.34 |
Yes |
| Lam. 2w vs. Lam.6m |
2561.5 |
4 |
9.82 |
Yes |
| Lam. 2w vs. Lam. 3m |
2084.0 |
3 |
10.64 |
Yes |
| Lam. 2w vs. Lam. 3w |
900.5 |
2 |
6.88 |
Yes |
| Lam. 3w vs. Lam.6m |
1661.0 |
3 |
8.48 |
Yes |
| Lam. 3w vs. Lam. 3m |
1183.5 |
2 |
9.05 |
Yes |
| Lam. 3m vs. Lam.6m |
477.5 |
2 |
3.65 |
Yes |
|
| Table 2: Statistical analysis of lameness at each time point. Lameness: Kruskal-Wallis one way analysis of Variance on ranks. |
