Skip to main content

Table 4 Predicted change in d2 outcomes after intervention with fish (n = 137), meat (n = 148), n-3 supplements (n = 141)

From: Fatty fish intake and attention performance in 14–15 year old adolescents: FINS-TEENS - a randomized controlled trial

   Models adjusted for:
Crude   Baseline scorea Baseline, dietary complianceb
d2 test of attention outcomesc Pre Mean ± SD Post Mean ± SD P-within d IRR (95% CI) P-value IRR (95% CI) P-value
E1 errors
  Fish 24.6 ± 28.3 25.3 ± 27.9 0.544 1 (ref.)   1 (ref.)  
  Meat 19.0 ± 19.3 16.4 ± 15.9 0.074 0.85 (0.74, 0.98) 0.026 0.88 (0.76, 1.02) 0.084
  Supplement 25.4 ± 23.0 22.8 ± 24.1 0.161 1.01 (0.83, 1.23) 0.933 1.06 (0.88, 1.29) 0.528
E2 errors
  Fish 6.7 ± 8.8 3.5 ± 6.1 <0.001 1 (ref.)   1 (ref.)  
  Meat 5.9 ± 6.2 3.5 ± 9.2 0.001 0.91 (0.59, 1.39) 0.648 0.92 (0.60, 1.40) 0.681
  Supplement 6.6 ± 9.0 3.6 ± 6.3 <0.001 0.88 (0.63, 1.24) 0.469 0.90 (0.61, 1.32) 0.586
Total errors
  Fish 31.3 ± 32.6 28.8 ± 30.1 0.093 1 (ref.)   1 (ref.)  
  Meat 24.9 ± 21.7 19.9 ± 20.8 0.006 0.88 (0.75, 1.02) 0.094 0.91 (0.77, 1.07) 0.247
  Supplement 32.0 ± 27.6 26.4 ± 27.1 0.004 0.96 (0.80, 1.15) 0.671 1.03 (0.86, 1.23) 0.772
  1. Pre and post data are presented as mean ± SD and difference between treatment groups presented as coefficients (95% CI). Abbreviations: SD Standard deviation, IRR Incidence rate ratio, CI Confidence interval, E1 Errors of omission, E2 Errors of commission; Total errors (E1 + E2 errors)
  2. aBetween group differences analyzed using general estimates equation model, with the negative binomial distribution, exchangeable correlation structure and robust standard errors
  3. bAdjusted for the equivalent outcome at baseline and for dietary dietary compliance (i.e. the total intake of study meals or supplements) during the trial
  4. cA decrease in the number of errors indicates improvement
  5. dPaired-samples T-test for comparison within treatment groups from pre to post intervention