Skip to main content

Table 3 Estimated effect of WB-EMS on body composition and hand grip strength calculated by LMM

From: Effects of whole-body electromyostimulation combined with individualized nutritional support on body composition in patients with advanced cancer: a controlled pilot trial

  Estimated effect of WB-EMS intervention compared to controlsa
Week 4 p Week 8 p Week 12 p
Estimate [95% CI] Estimate [95% CI] Estimate [95% CI]
Body composition
 SMM [kg] −0.04 [− 0.49, 0.40] 0.848 0.31 [− 0.16, 0.78] 0.201 0.53 [0.08, 0.98] 0.022
 Bodyweight [kg] −0.02 [− 0.97, 0.93] 0.966 0.87 [− 0.13, 1.87] 0.077 1.02 [0.05, 1.98] 0.039
 FM [%] 0.75 [−0.20, 1.70] 0.121 0.14 [−0.87, 1.14] 0.789 0.51 [−0.46, 1.47] 0.302
 PhA [°] 0.04 [−0.09, 0.016] 0.557 −0.01 [− 0.14, 0.13] 0.946 0.07 [− 0.06, 0.19] 0.320
 Hydration [%]b − 0.98 [− 2.97, 1.01] 0.334 − 0.48 [− 2.58, 1.62] 0.655 − 2.73 [− 4.76, − 0.71] 0.008
Functional status
 Hand grip strength [kg] −0.20 [− 2.24, 1.84] 0.847 − 0.64 [− 2.68, 1.39] 0.535 0.60 [− 1.08, 2.27] 0.484
  1. Statistically significant effects are marked in bold type and indicated by p < 0.05
  2. Abbreviations: WB-EMS Whole-body electromyostimulation, SMM Skeletal muscle mass, FM Fat mass, PhA Phase angle, ECW Extracellular water, ICW Intracellular water
  3. aLinear mixed model analysis estimating the effect (group x time) of the combined WB EMS and nutrition intervention on the primary outcome of skeletal muscle mass and secondary outcomes of body composition and hand grip strength over the 12-week study course compared to the usual care control group. Data are presented as estimated mean difference between study groups and 95% confidence intervals [95% CI]
  4. bHydration represents ECW:ICW in %
\