| Variable | Mean(sd) | |
|---|---|---|
| n | 32 | |
| Age | 35.41 (9.83) | |
| Gender | Female | 9 (28.1) |
| Male | 23 (71.9) | |
| Marital Status(%) | Married | 18 (56.2) |
| Unmarried | 14 (43.8) | |
| Total Duration of Illness | 12.91 (8.74) | |
| AHRS | ||
| Day 0 | 34.59 (3.93) | |
| Day 5 | 33.12 (3.60) | |
| Day 21 | 34.28 (3.97) | |
| Beck’s Composite Index Score | ||
| Day 0 | -3.66 (8.11) | |
| Day 5 | -3.59 (8.07) | |
| Day 21 | -3.59 (8.09) | |
| Self Certainty | ||
| Day 0 | 10.59 (3.84) | |
| Day 5 | 10.59 (3.78) | |
| Day 21 | 10.56 (3.78) | |
| Self Reflectiveness | ||
| Day 0 | 6.94 (4.57) | |
| Day 5 | 7.00 (4.60) | |
| Day 21 | 6.97 (4.62) | |
| Positive Symptoms | ||
| Day 0 | 24.19 (5.35) | |
| Day 5 | 23.6(5.7) | |
| Day 21 | 24.00 (5.39) | |
| Negative Symptoms | ||
| Day 0 | 12.12 (5.69) | |
| Day 5 | 11.84 (5.86) | |
| Day 21 | 11.84 (5.86) | |
| Hallucinatory Behaviour(P3) | ||
| Day 0 | 4.62 (0.75) | |
| Day 5 | 4.16 (0.88) | |
| Day 21 | 4.50 (0.88) | |
| PANSS | ||
| Day 0 | 65.66 (12.09) | |
| Day 5 | 64.66 (12.57) | |
| Day 21 | 65.22 (12.06) |
One -way Repeated measures ANOVA was conducted , which Came out significant for Temporal variation post TDCS stimulation. Greenhouse-Geisser correction was done for departure from sphericity
| Effect | df | MSE | F | ges | p.value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| times | 1.09, 33.90 | 4.08 | 8.58 ** | .03 | .005 |
Table with 95% confidence intervals of AHRS levels with Days of measurement
| Day | estimate | std.error | df | conf.low | conf.high |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 34.59 | 0.68 | 38.13 | 33.22 | 35.97 |
| 5 | 33.13 | 0.68 | 38.13 | 31.75 | 34.50 |
| 21 | 34.28 | 0.68 | 38.13 | 32.91 | 35.65 |
Pairwise Contrasts between Days was calculated using Tukey’s correction for multiple measurements.
| Post hoc | contrast | estimate | std.error | df | statistic | p.value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Day 0 - | Day 5 | 1.469 | 0.373 | 62 | 3.933 | 0.001 |
| Day 0 - | Day 21 | 0.313 | 0.373 | 62 | 0.837 | 0.682 |
| Day 5 - | Day 21 | -1.156 | 0.373 | 62 | -3.096 | 0.008 |
Thus we can clearly see that even on adjusting for post-hoc corrections, AHRS score is significantly lower on Day 5 compared to Day 0 and Day 21 , while there is no difference between Day 0 and Day 21 indicating a reversion back to baseline status and hence no legacy effect of TDCS.
One -way Repeated measures ANOVA was conducted , which Came out significant for Temporal variation post TDCS stimulation. Greenhouse-Geisser correction was done for departure from sphericity
| Effect | df | MSE | F | ges | p.value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| times | 1.71, 52.86 | 0.96 | 9.86 *** | .001 | .0005 |
Table with 95% confidence intervals of PANSS levels with Days of measurement
| Day | estimate | std.error | df | conf.low | conf.high |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 65.66 | 2.16 | 31.23 | 61.24 | 70.07 |
| 5 | 64.66 | 2.16 | 31.23 | 60.24 | 69.07 |
| 21 | 65.22 | 2.16 | 31.23 | 60.81 | 69.63 |
Pairwise Contrasts between PANSS was calculated using Tukey’s correction for multiple measurements.
| Post hoc | contrast | estimate | std.error | df | statistic | p.value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Day 0 - | Day 5 | 1.000 | 0.226 | 62 | 4.428 | 0.000 |
| Day 0 - | Day 21 | 0.437 | 0.226 | 62 | 1.937 | 0.137 |
| Day 5 - | Day 21 | -0.562 | 0.226 | 62 | -2.491 | 0.040 |
Thus we can clearly see that even on adjusting for post-hoc corrections, PANSS score is significantly lower on Day 5 compared to Day 0 and Day 21 , while there is no significant ifference between Day 0 and Day 21.
The effect on PANSS seems to be more pronounced than AHRS , higher t-statistic of change between Day 0 and Day 5
One -way Repeated measures ANOVA was conducted , which Came out significant for Temporal variation post TDCS stimulation. Greenhouse-Geisser correction was done for departure from sphericity
| Effect | df | MSE | F | ges | p.value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| times | 1.35, 41.84 | 0.26 | 10.73 *** | .05 | .0008 |
Table with 95% confidence intervals of P3 levels with Days of measurement
| Day | estimate | std.error | df | conf.low | conf.high |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 4.63 | 0.15 | 43.68 | 4.33 | 4.92 |
| 5 | 4.16 | 0.15 | 43.68 | 3.86 | 4.46 |
| 21 | 4.50 | 0.15 | 43.68 | 4.20 | 4.80 |
Pairwise Contrasts between P3 was calculated using Tukey’s correction for multiple measurements.
| Post hoc | contrast | estimate | std.error | df | statistic | p.value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Day 0 - | Day 5 | 0.469 | 0.105 | 62 | 4.473 | 0.000 |
| Day 0 - | Day 21 | 0.125 | 0.105 | 62 | 1.193 | 0.462 |
| Day 5 - | Day 21 | -0.344 | 0.105 | 62 | -3.280 | 0.005 |
Thus we can clearly see that even on adjusting for post-hoc corrections, P3 score is significantly lower on Day 5 compared to Day 0 and Day 21 , while there is no significant ifference between Day 0 and Day 21.
The effect on P3 follows similar trajectory as PANSS and AHRS , with an initial fall and a regression to mean at 3 weeks
One -way Repeated measures ANOVA was conducted , which Came out just significant(p=0.048) for Temporal variation post TDCS stimulation. Greenhouse-Geisser correction was done for departure from sphericity
| Effect | df | MSE | F | ges | p.value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| times | 2, 62 | 0.26 | 3.21 * | .0005 | .05 |
Table with 95% confidence intervals of Negative Symptom levels with Days of measurement
| Day | estimate | std.error | df | conf.low | conf.high |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 12.13 | 1.03 | 31.32 | 10.03 | 14.22 |
| 5 | 11.84 | 1.03 | 31.32 | 9.75 | 13.94 |
| 21 | 11.84 | 1.03 | 31.32 | 9.75 | 13.94 |
Pairwise Contrasts between Days was calculated using Tukey’s correction for multiple measurements.
| Post hoc | contrast | estimate | std.error | df | statistic | p.value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Day 0 - | Day 5 | 0.281 | 0.128 | 62 | 2.193 | 0.08 |
| Day 0 - | Day 21 | 0.281 | 0.128 | 62 | 2.193 | 0.08 |
| Day 5 - | Day 21 | 0.000 | 0.128 | 62 | 0.000 | 1.00 |
Thus we can clearly see that even on adjusting for post-hoc corrections,the marginal improvement in negative symptoms also disappears, and there is no difference between negative symptoms at Day 5 and Day 21 implying a lack of effect of TDCS on negative symptom domain
One -way Repeated measures ANOVA was conducted , which Came out to be highly significant for Temporal variation post TDCS stimulation. Greenhouse-Geisser correction was done for departure from sphericity
| Effect | df | MSE | F | ges | p.value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| times | 1.42, 44.11 | 0.27 | 11.98 *** | .002 | .0003 |
Table with 95% confidence intervals of Positive Symptom levels with Days of measurement
| Day | estimate | std.error | df | conf.low | conf.high |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 24.19 | 0.97 | 31.27 | 22.21 | 26.16 |
| 5 | 23.66 | 0.97 | 31.27 | 21.68 | 25.63 |
| 21 | 24.00 | 0.97 | 31.27 | 22.02 | 25.98 |
Pairwise Contrasts between Days was calculated using Tukey’s correction for multiple measurements.
| Post hoc | contrast | estimate | std.error | df | statistic | p.value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Day 0 - | Day 5 | 0.531 | 0.11 | 62 | 4.826 | 0.000 |
| Day 0 - | Day 21 | 0.188 | 0.11 | 62 | 1.703 | 0.212 |
| Day 5 - | Day 21 | -0.344 | 0.11 | 62 | -3.123 | 0.008 |
Thus we can clearly see that even on adjusting for post-hoc corrections,the marginal improvement in positive symptom remains significant only at Day 5
One -way Repeated measures ANOVA was conducted , which Came out to be non- significant* for Temporal variation post TDCS stimulation. Greenhouse-Geisser correction was done for departure from sphericity
| Effect | df | MSE | F | ges | p.value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| times | 1.63, 50.57 | 0.03 | 1.52 | <.0001 | .23 |
One -way Repeated measures ANOVA was conducted , which Came out to be non- significant* for Temporal variation post TDCS stimulation. Greenhouse-Geisser correction was done for departure from sphericity
| Effect | df | MSE | F | ges | p.value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| times | 1.49, 46.25 | 0.04 | 0.33 | <.0001 | .66 |
One -way Repeated measures ANOVA was conducted , which Came out to be non- significant* for Temporal variation post TDCS stimulation. Greenhouse-Geisser correction was done for departure from sphericity
| Effect | df | MSE | F | ges | p.value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| times | 1.60, 49.57 | 0.05 | 1.00 | <.0001 | .36 |
Even on controlling for other fixed effects like Age,duration of illness,Baseline P3/PANSS/NT we could find that only Day 5 post TDCS had significant impact on AHRS improvement, even by Day 21 there was regression to mean
Regression Table
Forest Plot of Parameters