Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(5)
Exact(2)
By using SF36, the age and gender matched mean population norm score for PF was 73.0.
At five years, the SF-36 PCS of 44.8 is significantly lower than the mean population norm of 50 (P = 0.001).
Similar(58)
However, the difference between sample mean and population norms for HUI3 (diff = 0.14) is nearly 5 times the clinically important difference for the HUI3 overall score [ 8, 31].
The patients' HADS data were calculated as means and standard deviations, and as means for the population norm.
Effect size is calculated by subtracting the mean score of the population norm from the mean score of the patient group divided by the standard deviation of the patient group.
While the mean PCS score of the advanced elderly was well below the mean of the general population norm, indicating markedly impaired physical health status, the mean MCS score was similar to the general population norm, indicating that mental health status was not worse than in the rest of the population.
*** Effect size is calculated by subtracting the mean score of the population norm (adjusted for age and gender) from the mean score of the patients group and divided by the standard deviation of the patient group.
*** Paired-Samples t-test to calculate effect size index d **** Effect size is calculated by subtracting the mean score of the population norm (adjusted for age and gender) from the mean score of the patients group and divided by the standard deviation of the patient group.
Over all study time points the SF-12v2 physical and mental health scores were below the general population norm (mean of 50 found in the 1998 General US population norms).
Mean physical scores were below the population norm at all time points but the mean mental scores after 6 months were similar to those population norms.
MCS and PCS quality-of-life scores from the SF-12v2 were significantly below the US population norm of 50 (mean MCS =42.38, P<0.01; mean PCS =47.74, P=0.01; Table 1).
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