Data analysis
poststroke
REGRESSION, LITTLE
The sample size was calculated using the program Epidat 4.2. At the time when the study was designed, the methodologist and statistician calculated the size of the sample using an estimated effectiveness ratio of 90% in the experimental group and 50% in the control group, a power level of 80%, and confidence level of 95% (p < 0.05). The minimum necessary sample size was calculated to be 20 participants per group. Then, we decided to increase the sample size by 15% to compensate for potential losses (during field work and in the course of the study). The small sample size in each group could have led to a change in the variance in the case of missing data imputation, which would have compromised the accuracy of the final data.Once we had gathered all the data, we carried out an analysis of missing values with SPSS; we observed a value below 5%, which can be attributed to chance. The estimated effectiveness in both groups (90% and 50%) was determined after considering the outcomes from studies already published on conventional poststroke motor rehabilitation, VRBT and the two approaches combined [Student's t tests and Chi-squared tests were performed to compare the clinical and sociodemographic variables of the intervention groups. Differences in the Ashworth, ARAT, and FMA-UE scores at baseline, postintervention, and 3-month follow-up were analyzed with inter- and intragroup ANOVAs and Student's t tests. Statistical significance was defined by a p value of less than 0.05.In this study of experimental intervention with the HandTutorThe analysis of missing data from the CG was carried out with multiple imputation in the analysis (expectation maximization and regression method), with a Little’s Chi-squared statistic of 36.280 (degrees of freedom = 28; p = 0.136).The assignment of participants to the intervention groups was random and unknown to the researcher performing the statistical analysis.