|
Statistical analysis of Study 1 scores of wellbeing (Winter 2001–2002). |
||||||||
| Intent-to-treat analysis |
Per-protocol analysis |
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
| Dose of Vitamin D |
N |
Age |
N |
|||||
| mcg/day (IU/day) |
Total in group, (% female) |
December 2001 Score out of 6; mean (SD) |
February 2002 Score out of 6; mean (SD) |
Total in group, (% female) |
December 2001 Score out of 6; mean (SD) |
February 2002 Score out of 6; mean (SD) |
||
|
|
||||||||
| 15 (600) |
32 (80%) |
53 (14) |
2.2 (2.0) |
2.3 (2.3) |
16 (80%) |
2.4 (2.2) |
2.3 (2.4) |
|
| 100 (4000) |
32 (83%) |
55 (9) |
2.0 (2.3) |
1.1 (1.8) a |
21 (83%) |
1.5 (2.2) |
1.0 (1.5) bc |
|
|
a February scores for 100 mcg (4000 IU)/day were lower (better) than in the 15 mcg (600 IU)/day group by two-tail t-score p = 0.072; Mann-Whitney p = 0.072; these 2-tail values are equivalent to 1-tail significance. b Paired t-test, December score vs February Score p = 0.097; or non-parametric Sign test, p = 0.109. c Difference between dose groups by t-test p = 0.047; by Mann-Whitney test p = 0.072 (this 2-tail value is equivalent to 1-tail significance) | ||||||||
Vieth et al. Nutrition Journal 2004 3:8 doi:10.1186/1475-2891-3-8 |
||||||||