Table 2. Outcome measures. Data are displayed as mean ± standard deviation (SD). Prevention Regeneration Control Mixed-Methods Analysis and Post-hoc t-tests (change to baseline) N mean ± SD N mean ± SD N mean ± SD Prevention vs. Regeneration Prevention vs. Control Regeneration vs. Control MIVF T0 (N) 12 467.7 ± 130.1 11 432.7 ± 103.4 13 493.6 ± 60.3 < 0.01 MIVF T1 (N) 13 452.6 ± 155.6 11 418.9 ± 102.7 13 449.9 ± 59.7 .815 .103 .064* MIVF T2 (N) 12 394.7 ± 95.1 11 381.9 ± 121.9 13 390.2 ± 67.2 .496 .346 .044* Painmuscle T0 (cm VAS) 15 0.9 ± 1.2 15 1.6 ± 1.3 15 1.2 ± 1.4 < 0.01 Painmuscle T1 (cm VAS) 15 4.4 ± 2.3 15 4.6 ± 3.5 15 4.2 ± 2.8 .689 .596 .916 Painmuscle T2 (cm VAS) 15 2.8 ± 2.2 15 2.7 ± 2 15 2.2 ± 2.3 .225 .182 .794 RSI T0 13 1.6 ± 0.5 15 1.4 ± 0.4 15 1.6 ± 0.3 < 0.01 RSI T1 14 1.3 ± 0.4 15 1.2 ± 0.4 15 1.5 ± 0.4 .690 .187 .495 RSI T2 15 1.5 ± 0.5 15 1.3 ± 0.4 15 1.6 ± 0.4 .880 .466 .689 The statistical analysis was performed as time x group analysis and subsequent t-tests for intragroup comparisons. There was a trend towards significance when comparing MIVF between the regeneration and the control group at T1 and T2. MIVF mean isometric voluntary force, RSI reactive strength index.