Table 1.

Characteristic of the variables with means +- standard deviations for all subjects and
for female and male separately with corresponding numbers and p-values

Variable Sex Mean +/- SD p Values

Total (n = 54) 43,36 +/-10,874

Age (y)
Women (n = 15) 42,07 +/- 13,031
0,593
Men (n = 39) 43,85 +/- 10,072

Total (n = 54) 27,96 +/- 10,139

No of knee-bendings
injured knee, baseline
(per 30s) Women (n = 15) 25,67 +/- 8,174
0,306
Men (n = 39) 28,85 +/- 10,764

Total (n = 54) 49,96 +/- 23,733

Pain VAS baseline, 0-
100 (0=no pain,
Women (n = 15) 42,53 +/- 24,605
100=worst possible pain)
0,401
Men (n = 39) 48,67 +/- 23,548

Total (n = 54) 26,126 +/- 4,515

Body Mass Index,
baseline (kg/m x m)
Women (n = 15) 23,088 +/- 4,445
0,002*
Men (n = 39) 27,294 +/- 4,013
*Statistically significant

This table offers means +- standard deviations of subjects´ age, number of knee bending of
injured knee-baseline, pain VAS baseline, BMI baseline. We used “explore” option to
calculate means +- SD and by “split file” we separated males from female to filter all analyses
on male or female only. Male subjects are heavier than female subjects according to
significantly higher BMI for male (p<0.05). if you have decided on an acceptable limit for
your p-value, you should state this level in statistics!
Figure 1. A simple scatter plot illustrating no significant correlation between BMI (X axis) as
a predictor variable and New (Y axis) as a predicted variable

Analyzing potential correlation between BMI and New using Pearson´s correlation coefficient
showed that r =0.033. Since r =1 is perfect correlation and around r =0.8 is significant
correlation between variables, our number is much more lower which indicates very poor yet
non-significant correlation between these two variables. Our number is very close to zero
indicating that there is almost no correlation at all between these two variables. Simple scatter
plot in Fig. 1 illustrates no significant correlation between two tested variables.
Each dot in this scatter plot represents BMI and new. The most obvious fact that one can
observe in this graph is, that it shows almost no correlation between these two variables. Best
fit line is stated and represents the best possible linear estimate of the relationship between
these two variables. However, since dots are not clustering around the best fit line, therefore
we cannot predict subject´s number of New from his/her BMI number.
Table 3. Linear Regression Analysis Results (with New as a dependent (predicted) variable)
with R Square = 0.064

Model Unstandardized Sig. 95% Confidence

Coefficients Interval for B
B Std. Error Lower Upper
Bound Bound
(Constant) 11,833 17,153 ,494 -22,637 46,304
Body Mass Index,
,382 ,571 ,507 -,766 1,530
baseline (kg/m x m)
Pain VAS baseline,
0-100 (0=no pain,
,020 ,099 ,840 -,179 ,219
100=worst possible
pain)
Sex -3,532 5,712 ,539 -15,011 7,947
Age -,358 ,215 ,102 -,789 ,074

Linear multiple regression analysis aims to find a linear relationship between a response
variable and several possible predictor variables. In this case linear regression did not detect
any significant relationships between tested variables. We cannot use subjects´ BMI number,
VAS score, gender, neither age to explain or predict subjects score in New variable. P values
are equal or higher than 0.102 indicating we should retain null hypothesis.

Table 4. Multivariate Logistic Regression Results (with dependent variable = New variable
representing change over time in number of knee bending/30 sec with positive values only)

Variable B Sig. Exp(B) Lower Upper

(95% C.I. for (95% C.I. for
Exp (B)) Exp (B))
Age_40(1) ,085 ,888 1,088 .334 3.547
-,440 ,507 ,644 .175 2.363
BMI_25(1)
-,250 ,659 ,779 .256 2.370
Pain_d(1)
,164 ,819 1,178 .291 4.770
Sex(1)

Constant ,477 ,134 1,610

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: age_40, BMI_25, pain_s, Sex.