Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(2)
Significantly more diabetics underwent major amputation (p < 0.02) than non diabetics.
In contrast, the presence of diabetes and A1C level had significant association with major amputation (P = 0.012 and P = 0.007, respectively).
Similar(58)
After adjustment for age at registration, the time from the registration of diabetes to the first major amputation increased 1.2 years (P < 0.0001) from 1997 2000 to 2004 2007.
Diabetic patients had a higher rate of major amputation compared with nondiabetic patients (P = 0.008, log-rank test), whereas they had a similar life prognosis (P = 0.717).
At 30 days, there was no significant difference in the major amputation rates of PTA and BPG groups (P = 0.414), but during the follow-up, there was a significant difference (P < 0.001).
Embolic occlusion was protective for major amputation at less than 30 days (OR 0·30; P = 0·003).
Those predictor variables showing independent association with the outcome of interest (e.g., major amputation), in terms of OR and significance level P < 0.05, were selected for model fitting in a subsequent multiple logistic regression analysis using a stepwise approach.
In addition, in the work of Gershater et al. (14), uremia was significantly associated with major amputation among patients with neuroischemic and ischemic ulcers (2.43 [1.33–4.45]; P = 0.004) as well as with minor or major amputation among patients with neuropathic ulcers (2.62 [1.39–4.96]; P = 0.003).
The presence of diabetes was independently associated with major amputation, and the adjusted HR was 3.101 (95% CI 1.262 7.621) (P = 0.014).
Case subjects with a minor amputation were younger than those with a major amputation (minor LEA 67.1 years [13.2], major LEA 75.7 years [10.3]; P < 0.001), and we controlled for this age difference by presenting age-adjusted mortality rates.
Within 30 days of thrombolysis 42 patients (13·2 per cent) treated in Uppsala required a major amputation, compared with 56 (13·1 per cent) of 429 patients in Malmö (P = 0·938).
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