The phrase "analysis for diabetes" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in contexts related to medical research, health assessments, or discussions about diabetes management.
Example: "The study focused on the analysis for diabetes to identify potential risk factors and treatment options."
Alternatives: "diabetes assessment" or "diabetes evaluation".
Results of the additional sensitivity analyses with adjustments for baseline HbA1c, blood glucose and body mass index were consistent with the results from the main analysis for diabetes.
Table 2 shows the results of the Poisson regression analysis for diabetes prevalence.
Table 4 presents the results of the multivariate regression analysis for diabetes related prescription drug costs.
Logistic regression analysis for diabetes in ECLIPSE is described in the Additional file 1.> COPDGene enrolled 10,300 subjects.
Survival analysis for diabetes onset was limited to autoantibody-positive relatives and used the Kaplan-Meier method.
Logistic regression was used for modeling multiple risks for hypertension and it was also intended for the diabetes mellitus; however, analysis for diabetes mellitus was not conducted because of the collected small number of diabetes cases.
Nine studies provided data that could be used in the meta-analysis for diabetes [ 12- 16, 18- 23, 23] (figure 2).
The meta-analysis for diabetes did not detect any heterogeneity between inpatient and community samples with schizophreniform illnesses, suggesting consistency between settings despite the sampling bias inherent to inpatient samples.
Bell, C. G. et al. Genome-wide DNA methylation analysis for diabetic nephropathy in type 1 diabetes mellitus.
We did not initially carry out an analysis corrected for diabetes because the biological samples were not selected with regard to diabetes; therefore data were potentially skewed for this outcome.
In this analysis adjusted for diabetes, heart failure, age, and gender, regarding the time to first unplanned hospitalization or death also no significant beneficial effect for the intervention group in comparison to the control group could be shown after one year (Hazard Ratio 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.62-1.29, p-value 0.556).
