151 The severity of oral dryness and the use of drymouth interventions Binary logistic regression: * p<0.05 Binary logistic regression: ** p<0.01 a Omnibus test χ2 =29.6, df=5, p<0.01; Cox & Snell R2=0.29; Nagelkerke R2=0.44 b Omnibus test χ2 =37.4, df=4, p<0.01; Cox & Snell R2=0.29; Nagelkerke R2=0.47 c Omnibus test χ2 =20.8, df=4, p<0.01; Cox & Snell R2=0.22; Nagelkerke R2=0.44 d Omnibus test χ2 =24.4, df=3, p<0.01; Cox & Snell R2=0.25; Nagelkerke R2=0.33 e Omnibus test χ2 =28.1, df=3, p<0.01; Cox & Snell R2=0.23; Nagelkerke R2=0.30 f Omnibus test χ2 =31.9, df=4, p<0.01; Cox & Snell R2=0.32; Nagelkerke R2=0.43 g Omnibus test χ2 =24.4, df=2, p<0.01; Cox & Snell R2=0.24; Nagelkerke R2=0.33 h Omnibus test χ2 =20.4, df=3, p<0.01; Cox & Snell R2=0.17; Nagelkerke R2=0.23 i Omnibus test χ2 =9.4, df=1, p<0.01; Cox & Snell R2=0.11; Nagelkerke R2=0.15 j Omnibus test χ2 =6.3, df=1, p<0.05; Cox & Snell R2=0.07; Nagelkerke R2=0.10 k Omnibus test χ2 =26.2, df=6, p<0.01; Cox & Snell R2=0.21; Nagelkerke R2=0.29 l Omnibus test χ2 =6.0, df=1, p<0.05; Cox & Snell R2=0.07; Nagelkerke R2=0.09 m Omnibus test χ2 =20.5, df=3, p<0.01; Cox & Snell R2=0.21; Nagelkerke R2=0.34 n Omnibus test χ2 =16.1, df=2, p<0.01; Cox & Snell R2=0.17; Nagelkerke R2=0.23 o Omnibus test χ2 =14.0, df=4, p<0.01; Cox & Snell R2=0.15; Nagelkerke R2=0.25 p Omnibus test χ2 =26.0, df=4, p<0.01; Cox & Snell R2=0.21; Nagelkerke R2=0.29 q Omnibus test χ2 =8.0, df=2, p<0.05; Cox & Snell R2=0.09; Nagelkerke R2=0.12 r Omnibus test χ2 =7.3, df=1, p<0.01; Cox & Snell R2=0.08; Nagelkerke R2=0.14 s Omnibus test χ2 =21.1, df=3, p<0.01; Cox & Snell R2=0.17; Nagelkerke R2=0.30 t Omnibus test χ2 =35.3, df=4, p<0.01; Cox & Snell R2=0.34; Nagelkerke R2=0.48 7
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw