While it will be interesting to perform structure function analysis, we feel this is beyond the scope of the paper.
Because standardized variables (that is, z-scores) rather than raw scales were used for the cluster analysis, we felt it was reasonable to interpret and compare results from the validation and original samples, although a few of the specific instruments to measure individual symptoms differed between the two samples, as described above.
Given the heterogeneity and the focus on a facility-specific outcome in this analysis, we felt it was more informative to compare changes by facility than study design.
Within this type of analysis, we feel that the voices of CHWs themselves have the potential to greatly enrich our understanding of how implementation barriers are expressed and resolved in different contexts.
Taking into account these shortcomings of our analysis, we feel that the reduction of SGRQ of -4.6 units in the training group is likely a real effect and brings our results, in terms of the effects of an exercise program on health status, into better alignment with the results of other studies.
Since this is a preliminary in silico analysis, we feel that the overview is sufficient and has to be validated in functional studies.
From the results of the present analysis, we feel that a CI of 50% or more should be pursued.
Based on this analysis, we feel that we have reliably categorized subjects into the correct amputation group based on, in many cases, radiology reports alone.
However, because of the timeframe of our analysis, we feel that this is not an unrealistic assumption.
While our study results are drawn from a secondary analysis we feel as though they can provide meaningful contribution to the current body of literature.
