Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(1)
Results: Significant differences occurred between groups for forearm (P <.0001; repeated-measures analysis of variance) but not fingertip cutaneous blood flow.
Similar(59)
ANOVA was used to determine that there was no difference in rate of skin graft between groups (forearm, lower leg, thigh) (p = 0.12).
No difference was observed in mean resonance running times (multidirectional) between the two groups for the nonexposed (forearm) or exposed (dorsum of the hand) areas.
Furthermore, ANCOVAs with muscle CSA as covariate (forearm muscle CSA for radial and metacarpal bone parameters and lower leg muscle CSA for tibial bone parameters) were performed for all bone parameters to adjust for the significant between-group differences in lower leg mus-cle CSA and trend for forearm muscle CSA.
A priori hypothesis testing of main effects showed a significant group by time effect for forearm pain intensity (p<0.001) and work disability (p<0.01).
The low mean pain intensity, high prevalence of pain focused in the neck-shoulder region, and transient pain characteristic may together account for the lack of differences in PPTs between groups in the neck-shoulder regions, in the forearm region, and in the TA muscle.
The ratio between the affected and unaffected sides for forearm pronation indicated the function was well preserved.
For the two groups combined, forearm pain and work disability were moderately related (Spearman's r=0.41, p<0.0001).
Typically each data set possessed only two DF scores, as we were attempting to differentiate between only three user-defined groups: control (forearm), control (neck), and AN lesion.
Thirty-six ASA physical statuses I and II patients, between 18 and 60 years of age, scheduled for forearm and hand surgery under axillary brachial plexus block, were allocated to 3 groups.
The difference in AUC for the tadalafil vs placebo day (∆AUC) for PSglu correlated with ∆AUC for forearm glucose uptake in the control group (r 0.74, p < 0.01) and in the type 2 diabetic women (r 0.89, p < 0.01).
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com