## 3 Results
### Range of Motion  
Table 4 shows the mean of the L-ROM measures (range of motion assessment) for the paretic and non-paretic lower limb at basal assessments (T0) and at one-month follow-up (T1) for hip and knee. In addition, Table 4 presents the significance values (\(p\)-value) estimated using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test by comparing the L-ROM values obtained for the paretic and the non-paretic legs, at T0 and T1, as detailed in the footers of the same table (Table 4). Figure 3 shows a plot of the mean measures of the range of motion obtained for paretic and non-paretic limb at T0 and at T1.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**L-FORCE **(Nm)**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{\(p\)**-Value *} \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{**For Paretic Legs**} \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**At T0**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**At T1**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**At T0**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**At T1**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\(P_{1}\) 1  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**At T1**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**At T0**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**At T1**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\(P_{2}\) 2  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**At T1**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**At T0**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**At T1**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\(P_{2}\) 2  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**At T1**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**At T0**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**At T1**} \\ \hline  & **Mean** & **SD** & **Mean** & **SD** & **Mean** & **SD** & **Mean** & **SD** & & & \\ \hline
**Hip Ext. 5**  & 17.2 & \(\pm\)15.85 & 24.5 & \(\pm\)21.44 & 38 & \(\pm\)23.94 & 50 & \(\pm\)35.50 & \(<\)0.05 & \(<\)0.05 & ns & ns \\ \hline
**Hip Flex. 6**  & 28.6 & \(\pm\)18.46 & 38.4 & \(\pm\)21.22 & 50.9 & \(\pm\)26.24 & 49.8 & \(\pm\)19.45 & \(<\)0.01 & ns & \(<\)0.05 & ns \\ \hline
**Knee Ext.** & 13.1 & \(\pm\)9.73 & 17.4 & \(\pm\)12.76 & 37.4 & \(\pm\)16.87 & 29.5 & \(\pm\)16.77 & \(<\)0.01 & \(<\)0.05 & ns & ns \\ \hline
**Knee Flex.** & 12.6 & \(\pm\)13.32 & 14.6 & \(\pm\)12.43 & 36.9 & \(\pm\)14.48 & 37.7 & \(\pm\)17.42 & \(<\)0.01 & \(<\)0.01 & ns & ns \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* \(p\)-value obtained using Wilcoxon signed-rank test, statistically significant at \(p\) \(<\) 0.05; ns = non-significant. **[ENDFOOTNOTE]** & 17.1 & \(p\)-value obtained using Wilcoxon signed-rank test, statistically significant at \(p\) \(<\) 0.05; ns = non-significant. **[ENDFOOTNOTE]** & **18.7 & \(\pm\)17.42 & \(<\)0.01 & \(<\)0.01 & ns & ns \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* \(p\)-value obtained using Wilcoxon signed-rank test, statistically significant at \(p\) \(<\) 0.05; ns = non-significant. **[ENDFOOTNOTE]** & 18.7 & \(\pm\)17.42 & \(<\)0.01 & \(<\)0.01 & ns & ns \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
\end{table}
Table 3: Mean and standard deviation (SD) of the L-FORCE measures (Nm) for paretic and non-paretic limbs at basal assessments (T0) and one-month follow-up (T1).  
Figure 2: L-FORCE (lower limb-force) measures (mean) of paretic and non-paretic limb at basal assessments T0 and one-month follow-up T1.  
According to results in Table 4 and Figure 3, the range of motion (ROM) values of the paretic legs were lower than those of non-paretic legs during the basal assessments (T0) and these ROM differences were statistically significant (\(p<0.05\)). Also, at one-month follow-up (T1) the ROM values of the paretic legs continued to be lower than those of non-paretic legs and these ROM differences were statistically significant (\(p<0.05\)). The ROM values of the paretic legs at one-month follow-up (T1) were greater than those at basal assessment (T0) but these value differences were statistically significant (\(p<0.05\)) only for the hip. The ROM values of the non-paretic legs at one-month follow-up (T1) were greater than those at basal assessment (T0) but these ROM differences were not statistically significant.