Stand if You Can: A Standing Intervention in Long Term Care: Complete Statistical Analysis

1. Trial at a Glance

This page covers the registry results for Stand if You Can: A Standing Intervention in Long Term Care (NCT03796039), a randomized na study. The primary outcome is Changes in Walking Speed.

2. Clinical Question

The clinical rationale in the registry summary is that sitting is highly prevalent among frail older adults in long-term care, while walking speed is associated with outcomes such as autonomy and hospitalization. Those associations explain why walking speed was selected for study; they do not establish that changing standing time changes those broader outcomes.

The question is therefore specific: whether a scheduled increase in standing time, compared with social visits without standing, corresponds to a difference in walking speed measured before and after the intervention. The registry record lists additional outcome areas, including balance, leg strength, lower-limb power, anxiety symptoms, depression, loneliness, fall efficacy, and falls. Their presence does not supply evidence about the primary question or establish the results for those outcomes.

3. Trial Design

The registry describes a randomized, single-masked, parallel-group study. Participants were allocated to a standing and social intervention or to a control group. The word “single” describes the reported masking category, but which people were masked is not reported in the registry record. The record does not specify the randomization procedure, allocation concealment, or whether assignment was stratified.

The registry lists an enrollment of 97 and identifies the study as completed. The recorded study start was 2019-04-01, and the primary completion date was 2020-01-23. These dates describe the registry record; they do not establish when every participant started or finished treatment, or when all outcome data were collected. The study phase is listed as NA.

The intervention was behavioral. Participants in the standing and social intervention group were to stand for 20 minutes Monday through Friday, for an additional 100 minutes of standing per week. The control group was to receive social visits without exposure to standing. The planned intervention duration is described in the trial summary as 5 months. Further information about adherence, session delivery, deviations from assigned activity, or other care received is not reported in the registry record.

The primary endpoint was change in walking speed, measured with the 10m walking speed test at pre- and post-intervention testing. The registry identifies the outcome as a continuous measure reported as a mean with standard deviation. However, the primary outcome has several categories or time points and is not reduced in the record to one comparison. Consequently, no single between-group estimate of change can be described from this record.

The registry lists 14 outcome measures and 0 analyses. Those entries do not show that all planned measures were collected, nor do they establish which analysis was conducted. A protocol, detailed statistical analysis plan, sample-size justification, and description of analysis populations are not reported in the registry record.

4. Participant Flow and Accounting

The registry reports how participants moved through each stage of the study. All counts below are exactly as posted; missing counts are not inferred from other stages.

Overall Study

Reasons for not completing this period:

5. Baseline Characteristics

The table reproduces the baseline characteristics posted in the registry, which describe the participants analysed at baseline and help show whether the randomized groups were comparable.

6. Primary Endpoint

The registry lists the primary outcome as Changes in Walking Speed, measured over Pre and post intervention testing.

The primary endpoint is change in walking speed, measured with the 10m walking speed test. The registry describes testing before and after the intervention and identifies the outcome as a continuous measure summarized by a mean and standard deviation. Walking speed is expressed in m/s.

Walking speed is used because it provides a measurable indicator of physical capacity. The registry summary notes that it is associated with outcomes important to long-term-care residents, including autonomy and hospitalization. These associations provide a rationale for measuring walking speed, but they do not mean that a difference in the test necessarily demonstrates a change in autonomy, hospitalization, or another broader outcome.

The trial hypothesis stated that standing an additional 100 minutes per week for 5 months would result in a clinically meaningful improvement in walking speed of 0.1m/sec compared with a sitting social activity. That value describes the hypothesis, not an observed treatment effect. The registry record does not report a single summarized result for the primary outcome: it notes that the outcome has several categories or time points and was not reduced to one comparison.

Without a reported comparison of change between groups, the direction, size, and precision of the primary outcome result cannot be assessed from the registry record. The test name and measurement schedule alone do not show whether walking speed changed, whether any change differed by group, or how uncertain an estimate might be.

7. Why No Re-analysis Is Shown

8. Statistical Interpretation

9. Statistical Methods Explained

Several statistical ideas help clarify what can and cannot be inferred from the registry record. The following explanations are general; they do not imply that a particular analysis was conducted in this trial.

What does randomization contribute?

In general, randomization assigns participants to study groups using chance. When implemented well, it can reduce systematic differences between groups at the start of a trial, including differences that are known and unknown. It does not guarantee that groups will be identical, especially in a particular study, and it does not by itself prevent bias after assignment. The registry identifies the allocation as randomized but does not report the sequence-generation method, concealment procedures, or baseline comparisons. Those details would help readers assess how assignment was carried out.

A parallel-group design means participants are assigned to one group rather than deliberately crossing between intervention and control conditions. That design label is reported for this study. The record does not describe whether participants changed activities outside their assigned sessions, how such behavior was tracked, or how departures from assignment were treated in analyses.

What would a between-group change estimate mean?

For a pre- and post-intervention continuous outcome, an analysis could compare change in the intervention group with change in the control group, or estimate a post-intervention difference while accounting for baseline measurement. These approaches answer related but not identical questions, and they can yield different estimates. This is a general explanation, not a statement about the analysis used in this trial. The registry record does not specify which model or comparison was planned or conducted.

A group mean describes the average measured value within a group. A standard deviation describes how spread out individual measurements are around that mean. Neither quantity alone gives the between-group effect or its uncertainty. A confidence interval, when reported, gives a range of values compatible with the data and specified statistical assumptions. A narrow interval indicates greater precision than a wide interval; an interval can still include effects that differ in clinical importance. No confidence interval for the primary comparison is reported in the registry record.

A p-value, when reported, assesses how compatible data are with a specified null hypothesis under a statistical model. It is not the probability that the null hypothesis is true, and it does not measure the size or importance of an effect. The registry record does not report a primary-outcome p-value or a primary comparison from which to interpret one.

Why does the choice of summary matter?

The record identifies walking speed as a continuous measure summarized by a mean and standard deviation. That summary can be informative when a mean is an appropriate representation of the data, but it may not describe all features of a distribution. For example, a mean can be influenced by unusually high or low values. Distributional information and the analysis plan would help readers judge whether the chosen summary and model were suitable. Such details are not reported in the registry record.

Walking speed was assessed at pre- and post-intervention testing, but the record also notes several categories or time points and does not reduce the primary outcome to one comparison. Repeated measurements require a clear definition of which measurements contribute to the primary estimand and how within-person correlation is handled. This is a general consideration for repeated measures. The registry record does not specify the intended estimand, model, or handling of multiple time points.

What do planning illustrations represent?

A sample-size calculation is a planning exercise based on assumptions about the effect to detect, variability, significance level, allocation, and statistical model. The registry describes planning illustrations based on fractions of an observed effect, with a two-sided significance level of 0.05, equal allocation, and a normal approximation. These are planning assumptions, not a report of the trial’s original design rationale or a measure of the study’s observed power. The record does not report the trial’s own sample-size justification.

When planning illustrations are based on an observed effect, they depend on the estimate used and should not be treated as independent confirmation of that estimate. Smaller assumed effects generally require more information to detect than larger ones, all else being equal. This is a general statistical relationship, not a calculation of the requirements for this trial. The numerical planning results are not described in the registry record, and no new values can be inferred from the assumptions alone.

Why can over-dispersion matter?

For count outcomes, a simple model may assume that variability is explained by the mean. Over-dispersion means the observed variability is greater than that assumption allows. If unaccounted for, it can make uncertainty estimates too small and evidence appear more precise than it is. This is a general issue for count data, not a claim that over-dispersion occurred in this trial. The primary endpoint is continuous walking speed, and the registry record does not report a count-outcome model or a dispersion assessment.

More generally, any model depends on assumptions about how measurements are distributed, how observations relate to one another, and how missing data arise. A statistical analysis plan would clarify the planned estimand, model, covariates, handling of repeated measurements, and sensitivity analyses. Such a plan is not reported in the registry record. Thus, the design and outcome labels explain the intended question, but they do not identify the analysis used or supply its results.

10. Multiplicity, Missing Data and Analysis Populations

The registry lists 14 outcome measures, including walking speed and a range of physical, emotional, and safety outcomes. When a study considers multiple outcomes, time points, or comparisons, there can be more than one opportunity to observe a result that appears notable by chance. Statistical approaches can address multiplicity by defining a primary comparison in advance, adjusting inference, or treating other findings as exploratory. These are general options; the approach used in this trial is not reported in the registry record.

The record identifies walking speed as the primary outcome but also notes that it has several categories or time points and is not reduced to one comparison. Without a clearly reported primary contrast and analysis, it is not possible to determine which result was intended to anchor inference or how the additional outcomes and time points were handled. A multiplicity adjustment, testing sequence, or hierarchy is not reported in the registry record.

Missing outcome data can also affect interpretation. If some participants lack pre- or post-intervention walking-speed measurements, the analyzed participants may differ from those with missing measurements. Statistical methods can make assumptions about how missingness relates to observed or unobserved data, but those assumptions matter and cannot be checked from an outcome title alone. The record does not report the amount or pattern of missing primary-outcome data, reasons for missingness, imputation methods, or sensitivity analyses.

The analysis population is likewise not described. For example, a trial may analyze participants according to randomized assignment or use another defined population; these choices address different questions. The registry does not state which population was used for the primary analysis. The entry of 0 analyses does not establish that no analyses were conducted; it means that analyzed comparisons are not reported in the registry record. Accordingly, neither multiplicity handling nor missing-data methods can be assessed from the available record.

11. Safety Results

The registry reports serious adverse events as affected participants divided by participants at risk.

Deaths

Other (non-serious) adverse events

Participants with at least one non-serious event at or above the registry's 2% reporting threshold.

Most frequent non-serious adverse event terms

The posted safety figures distinguish serious adverse events, other adverse events, and deaths. In the standing and social intervention group, zero serious adverse events are recorded among 50 at risk; in the control group, zero are recorded among 47 at risk. The registry also records zero deaths in each group. For other adverse events, the figures are 1 affected among 50 at risk in the intervention group and 0 among 47 at risk in the control group.

These are descriptive counts. They do not establish that no events of any kind occurred, because the serious-event and other-event categories are separate. Nor do they show whether event ascertainment was complete or whether the groups were monitored for the same duration. Definitions of events, reporting procedures, and the observation period are not reported in the registry record. No serious adverse-event terms are listed.

Zero recorded serious events in these groups should not be interpreted as proof that the risk is absent. The entries also do not provide a formal comparison, an uncertainty interval, or a detailed assessment of event severity and timing. The other-adverse-event figures are not enough to establish a causal relationship with the intervention. They indicate only the counts recorded for the groups in the registry.

12. What the Result Does, and Does Not, Mean

The registry record supports a clear description of the trial’s intended comparison: a scheduled standing intervention versus social visits without standing, with change in walking speed as the primary outcome. It also records a randomized, single-masked, parallel-group design and an enrollment of 97. These registry entries describe the study framework, not its efficacy findings.

The record does not provide one summarized comparison of walking-speed change. It therefore does not show whether the standing group’s walking speed changed, whether the control group’s walking speed changed, or whether the changes differed between groups. The stated hypothesis of a clinically meaningful improvement of 0.1m/sec is a proposed target, not a reported result. No conclusion about effect size, direction, precision, or statistical significance follows from that hypothesis alone.

Likewise, the list of secondary outcome areas does not establish that any of those outcomes improved or worsened. No result should be inferred from the fact that balance, strength, emotional symptoms, loneliness, fall efficacy, or falls were included in the registry. Their actual measurements and analyses are not reported in the registry record.

The safety entries provide limited descriptive information: zero serious adverse events and zero deaths are recorded in each group, while other adverse events are recorded for 1 participant in the intervention group and 0 in the control group. These figures should not be extended to claims about all possible harms, because event definitions, ascertainment, and follow-up detail are not reported.

In general, a trial’s design can make a comparison informative, but interpretation also requires the results, uncertainty, analysis methods, and an account of missing data. Those elements are not available for the primary comparison in the registry record. The completion status means the study is listed as completed; it does not substitute for a reported outcome estimate. The registry entry alone therefore leaves the main question unresolved.

13. Why This Trial Matters Statistically

This trial addresses a practical research question in long-term care: whether a structured opportunity to stand can be evaluated against a social-visit control using a measurable physical-capacity outcome. Statistically, the randomized parallel-group design is intended to support a comparison between assigned groups, while pre- and post-intervention walking-speed testing provides a way to examine change over time.

The question is also an example of why outcomes and estimands need precise definition. “Change in walking speed” can refer to different contrasts: change within each group, a difference in change between groups, or a post-intervention comparison that accounts for baseline. Multiple time points or categories add further choices. The registry record identifies the endpoint and measurement approach but does not report a single comparison or the analysis used. Without that clarity in the results, readers cannot connect the planned question to an estimated effect.

The trial also illustrates the distinction between a clinically meaningful target and an observed result. The stated hypothesis of 0.1m/sec communicates a value considered relevant by the investigators, but it does not show that the study observed that change or estimated it precisely. A useful interpretation would require the effect estimate and its uncertainty, alongside a clear account of who was analyzed and how missing measurements were handled.

Finally, the record shows why completion status and outcome reporting are different. A completed trial can have a clearly described intervention and endpoints while still lacking an interpretable primary comparison in the registry record. For statistical readers, that gap is important: study design provides context, but evidence about the primary question depends on transparent outcome data and analysis reporting.

14. Limitations

• The posted summary statistics are the only data these results rest on; patient-level data, full protocols and statistical analysis plans are not available.
• Recalculated results are simple, unadjusted calculations from posted summaries. They do not replace the sponsor's prespecified analysis.

The principal limitation for interpreting this trial from the registry record is the absence of a single summarized primary-outcome comparison. The record explicitly notes that the walking-speed outcome has several categories or time points and was not reduced to one comparison. Group-level results, an effect estimate, a confidence interval, and a primary-outcome p-value are not reported. The stated hypothesis therefore cannot be compared with an observed estimate.

The trial description leaves important design details unspecified. Although allocation is listed as randomized and masking as single, the randomization procedure, allocation concealment, and identity of the masked party are not reported in the registry record. The record does not provide baseline characteristics, so the comparability of groups at the start of the study cannot be assessed from these entries.

Implementation details are also limited. The standing schedule is described, but adherence, attendance, activity outside intervention sessions, and departures from the assigned condition are not reported. The nature and consistency of the control social visits are not further detailed. The record does not explain how the intervention period was applied to individual participants or whether outcome assessment followed the same schedule for all participants.

For analysis, the statistical plan, primary estimand, analysis population, missing-data methods, and sensitivity analyses are not reported in the registry record. The record also does not describe how the multiple outcome measures and time points were prioritized or how multiplicity was handled. These omissions make it difficult to evaluate the intended inference, potential bias, and robustness of any result.

Finally, the safety entries are counts without reported event definitions, monitoring periods, or detailed event descriptions. They should not be treated as a complete safety analysis. These limitations concern what the registry record reports; they do not establish what information may exist elsewhere.

15. Related Tutorials

16. Related Statistical Calculators

17. Sources

• ClinicalTrials.gov: Stand if You Can: A Standing Intervention in Long Term Care — NCT03796039.
• Registry record last updated 2023-06-27; status last verified 2023-05.
• Results first posted 2021-07-06.
• Data retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov on 2026-11-09.
• Group sizes, means, event counts and sponsor-reported p-values are reproduced as posted. Effect estimates, confidence intervals and p-values not attributed to the sponsor are independently calculated from the posted summary statistics.

18. Record Summary

NCT03796039, “Stand if You Can: A Standing Intervention in Long Term Care,” is listed as a completed randomized, single-masked, parallel-group study sponsored by the University of New Brunswick. The registry records enrollment of 97, a start date of 2019-04-01, and primary completion on 2020-01-23.

The intervention group was assigned additional standing time, described as 20 minutes Monday through Friday and 100 minutes per week. The control group received social visits without exposure to standing. The primary outcome was change in walking speed, measured with the 10m walking speed test before and after intervention, and reported as a continuous measure using a mean and standard deviation.

The registry record does not reduce the primary outcome’s several categories or time points to one comparison. It does not report a single primary-outcome result, analysis plan, or account of missing data. Safety entries record zero serious adverse events and zero deaths in both groups, with other adverse events recorded for 1 participant in the intervention group and 0 in the control group.