Spss statistics software package version 22

Data from the exergame system and the assessments done by assessors were stored securely in a database at one of the rehabilitation sites. For the feasibility measures, descriptive statistics for the number of sessions, session duration, and exergaming duration, and session efficiency are reported. The session efficiency was calculated as the percentage of the actual amount of time spent using the exergames alone in a session over the total time of that session. For the safety measures, any occurrences of pain, fatigue, dizziness, and fall were reported. The number of dropouts was also documented. For the statistical analysis of the efficacy outcome measures, the IBM SPSS Statistics software package version 22 was used. We used the linear mixed model (LMM) analysis technique to model each outcome measure. In all the models, the fixed effects of the model were built using group, session, and their interaction. The baseline measurements (T0) were added to the models as covariates. The first-order autoregressive covariance structure with homogenous variances, i.e., AR(1), was found to be the most optimal choice for the models. For the post-hoc analysis, all the pairwise comparisons (simple effects) were adjusted using Bonferroni correction. For all inferential analyses, the probability of type 1 error was fixed at α = 0.05.

The data were analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics software package version 22 (IBM SPSS Inc., Armonk, NY, USA). Missing data values were excluded from the statistical analysis. Continuous variables are expressed as mean ± standard deviation and compared with independent variables t-test or Mann-Whitney U-test when appropriate. Categorical variables are expressed as numbers and percentages and compared by Fisher’s exact test. All tests were two-sided and a P value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

IBM SPSS Statistics software package version 22.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY) was used to evaluate the performance parameters of each assay through the construction of 2 × 2 tables. To calculate the sensitivity of these three methods, positive results from patients with proven or probable cryptococcosis based on the EORTC/MSG criteria were served to be true positive. For calculation of the specificity, negative results from patients without evidence of cryptococcosis according to the EORTC/MSG criteria were considered to be true negative. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and accuracy were calculated for each assay. The comparison between two methods was performed by paired diagnosis test design using McNemar or Fisher’s exact test with a P value of ≤ 0.05 being considered significant. The Youden index was calculated to assess the ability of each assay to identify real patients and non-patients. The k statistic was applied to evaluate the consistency of the three methods [26 (link)] and interpreted as follows: excellent agreement between tests, k > 0.80; substantial agreement, 0.60 < k ≤ 0.80; moderate agreement, 0.40 < k ≤ 0.60; and poor agreement, k ≤ 0.40.