Ai Feedback
Exact(8)
Mean total hip T-score was -1.9.
For each standard deviation (SD) increase in hip flexor strength, the increase in mean total hip BMD (SD) was 10.4 % (p = 0.009).
A similar pattern was observed for hip abductor strength, with an increase in mean total hip BMD of 22.8 % (p = 0.025).
For each SD increase in hip flexor strength there was an increase in mean total hip BMD (SD) of 10.4 % (Table 2).
The adjusted mean total hip BMD among non-Hispanic white females with a blood lead level in the lowest versus the highest tercile was 0.789 gm/cm versus 0.771 gm/cm (p = 0.09).
In those with only one type of deformity observed, the age-adjusted mean total hip BMD was 0.855, 0.801 and 0.802 g/cm2 in women, and 0.998, 0.950 and 0.935 in men, with wedge, biconcave and compression deformities, respectively.
Similar(52)
The mean total Harris hip and pain scores were 81 (SD 14) and 41 (SD 5).
The mean total Harris hip score (HHS) improved significantly from 56 points preoperatively (range, 14 -80 points) to 94 points postoperatively (range, 62 -100 points, paired Student t-test, p < 0.005).
We divided the hospitals into 5 volume groups based on the mean number of total hip arthroplasties performed per year.
Among patients who dropped out, average age was 87 years (standard deviation, 5; range, 78 94 years), mean value of total hip BMD was 0.650 g/cm (standard deviation, 0.103), and total body BMD was 0.943 g/cm (standard deviation, 0.147).
9, 22 The mean change in total hip BMD between groups at 6 months did not quite reach significance, but this may be explained by the small group size.
Related(20)
mean total pain
mean total days/month
mean total fluid
mean total backboard
mean total adult
mean total dose
mean total phosphorus
mean total body
mean total exercise
mean total number
mean maan hip
mean total abstinence
mean preoperative hip
mean total immunoglobulin
mean total accuracy
mean total protein
mean total submersion
mean total score
mean total length
mean total time
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