Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Similar(60)
All the differences between preoperative and postoperative values were found significant according to the Student's t-test (t = -17.14 p = 0.000 for abduction score, t = -12.04 p = 0.000 for external rotation score, t = -13.06 p = 0.000 for hand to head score, t = 2.372 p = 0.023 for hand to back score and t = -7.361 p = 0.000 for hand to mouth score).
All the differences, apart from hand to mouth score, between preoperative and postoperative values were found significant according to the Student's t-test (t = -2.53 p = 0.035 for abduction score, t = -3.592 p = 0.007 for external rotation score, t = -4.4 p = 0.002 for hand to head score and t = 2.8 p = 0.023 for hand to back score).
An AIS head score ≥3 and ISS ≥15 were found to be independent factors correlated with mortality after the multivariate analysis was performed (p < 0.05).
These fatal cases typically have a higher head AIS score (average score = 5.08) than surviving patients (average head score = 3.90).
The AIS head score was the only AIS score that differed between the groups.
All of the children who died suffered from severe head injuries with an AIS head score 5 or 6.
Other methods that have been used to measure the TBI severity were AIS head score, HISS score, or ICD codes.
The non-survivors suffered from more serious head injuries with an obviously increased AIS head score (5 vs. 4) and decreased GCS (3 vs. 10).
Analyzing the differences between non-survivors and survivors revealed that non-survivors were more severely injured with a lower GCS and higher AIS head score.
According to the definitions used by Dykes [ 10] and Diamond [ 11], no preventable death occurred in the study population because all non-survivors suffered serious head trauma with an AIS head score of 5 or 6.
They define preventable deaths as all injuries with an Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) less than 6, AIS head score of less than 5 and an Injury Severity Score (ISS) of less than 59 [ 10].
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