| |
CGI scale
|
Combinationab
|
CBMNCa
|
Control
|
|---|
|
CGI-GI
|
Not assessed
|
0(0.00%)
|
0(0.00%)
|
1(7.69%)
|
|
N (%)
|
Very much improved
|
3(33.33%)
|
1(7.14%)
|
0(0.00%)
|
|
Much improved
|
5(55.56%)
|
6(42.86%)
|
1(7.69%)
|
|
Minimally improved
|
1(11.11%)
|
2(14.29%)
|
11(84.62%)
|
|
No change
|
0(0.00%)
|
5(35.71%)
|
1(7.69%)
|
|
Minimally worse
|
0(0.00%)
|
0(0.00%)
|
0(0.00%)
|
|
Much worse
|
0(0.00%)
|
0(0.00%)
|
0(0.00%)
|
|
Very much worse
|
0(0.00%)
|
0(0.00%)
|
0(0.00%)
|
|
CGI-EI
|
Unchanged or worse
|
0(0.00%)
|
5(35.71%)
|
1(7.69%)
|
|
N (%)
|
Minimal
|
1(11.11%)
|
2(14.29%)
|
11(84.62%)
|
|
Moderate
|
6(66.67%)
|
7(50.00%)
|
1(7.69%)
|
|
Marked
|
2(22.22%)
|
0(0.00%)
|
0(0.00%)
|
| |
Total(missed)
|
9(0)
|
14(0)
|
13(1)
|
- Note: aThe percent of “Very much improved” and “Much improved” in the CGI-GI scale and the percent of “Marked” and “Moderate” effects in the CGI-EI scale were significantly higher in the Combination and CBMNC groups when compared with the Control group at 24w (p < 0.05). bThe percent of “Very much improved” and “Much improved” in the CGI-GI scale and the percent of “Marked” and “Moderate” effects in the CGI-EI scale were significantly higher in the Combination group when compared with the CBMNC group at 24w (p < 0.05).
