Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(2)
For the MOS-HIV and SF-12, mean physical summary scores were 53.1 and 49.0 respectively; mean mental summary scores were 53.4 and 45.6, respectively.
In a study conducted among people living with HIV and AIDS the mean physical summary scores of 49.0 and mean mental summary scores of 45.6 were found using the Social Functioning questionnaire (SF-12) [ 5].
Similar(58)
*Indicates a p-value less than 0.05 meaning a statistically significant difference in mean mental component summary scores reported by the group of treated participants and the participants in the control group in the adjusted model, at the given visit.
There was no evidence of a difference between the two treatment groups in the mean physical component summary scores (model estimate 0.69 (–1.79 to 3.08), P=0.58) or the mean mental component summary scores (model estimate –0.93 (–3.30 to 1.44), P=0.44).
The mean Physical Component Summary (PCS) score of SF-12 was 46.84 (10.1) and it ranged between 19.12 and 67.06; the mean Mental Component Summary (MCS) score was 46.88 10.966), ranging between 11.18 and 67.83. Figure 1 shows CAT-Health Item Exposure Rate (IER).
Changes in mean mental component summary scores reported at each follow-up interval by each participant group.
Mean mental component summary score (MCS) was 47.9 ± 10.0 points and significantly lower than the age and gender-stratified German Federal Health Survey-data.
Changes in mean mental component summary scores reported since the baseline visit to each follow-up visit by each participant group.
The mean mental component summary (MCS) scores were 39.52, 40.99 and 35.63 for people with asymptomatic HIV, symptomatic HIV and AIDS, respectively.
aEffect Size1 is the effect size of the change in mean mental component summary scores from the baseline visit to the given visit.
The mean mental health summary score (MCS12) of the SF-12 questionnaire was lower than that of the age- and sex-matched Italian population.
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