Skip to main content
Fig. 2 | Critical Care

Fig. 2

From: Prone position versus usual care in hypoxemic COVID-19 patients in medical wards: a randomised controlled trial

Fig. 2

Between-group comparison of outcomes within 28 days in prespecified subgroups; results of multivariable logistic regression analysis. Abbreviations OR, odds ratios; CI, confidence interval; SpO2, oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximetry; BMI, body mass index. aThere was no three-way interaction (P = .72). Among the three possible two-way interactions, only the interaction “intervention by initial SpO2 < or ≥ 95%” was significant (P = .021) and was kept in the model. bThere was no three-way interaction (P > .99). Among the three possible two-way interactions, only the interaction “intervention by BMI < or ≥ 30 kg/m2” was significant (P = .049) and was kept in the model. cThere was no three-way interaction (P = .97). Among the three possible two-way interactions, only the interaction “intervention by initial SpO2 < or ≥ 95%” was significant (P = 0.02) and was kept in the model. dThere was no three-way interaction (P = .93). Among the three possible two-way interactions, only the interaction “intervention by initial SpO2 < or ≥ 95%” was significant (P = .01) and was kept in the model. eThere was no three-way interaction (P = .79). There was no significant interaction among the three possible two-way interactions (all P > .05). None of those interaction terms were introduced in the logistic model

Back to article page