Sentence examples for more target joints from inspiring English sources

Seven hundred and fourteen patients (58.2%) were reported diagnosed with one or more target joints.

Our analysis suggests that the presence of one or more target joints has a significant impact on NDDCs for patients with severe haemophilia, ceteris paribus.

In all cases examined, patients with no target joints consumed less medical resources compared to patients with one or more target joints (Table 3).

The marginal effect of the presence of one or more target joints on NDDCs was assessed using a generalized linear model (GLM).

Mean NDDCs were EUR 3641 (SD 6157); per-patient NDDCs in the presence of one or more target joints – regardless of number or location – was EUR 5046 (SD 7479) versus EUR 1684 for patients with no target joints.

Physiotherapy visits were found to be lower in the no target joint group 0.89 (SD = 3.75) compared with patients with one or more target joints 3.14 (SD = 7.99) (p < 0.001).

Further, the presence of one or more target joint can have a major impact on medical resource utilisation and subsequent costs for patients with severe haemophilia.

The mean average marginal effect (AME) of one or more upper body target joints was EUR 2646 (standard error (SE) 454); AME was EUR 2626 (SE 367) for individuals with one or more lower body target joints.

SDC between 0 and 6 months for the same series of joints enabled disease progression to be detected in more than 60.0% of the 30 target joints, whereas the previous anatomical phase scoring system allowed only 33.3% of these IP joints to be classified as progressors.

Demographic and resource use data were compared between the sample of patients with no reported target joints and those with one or more reported target joints.

More erosive disease or remodelling had occurred in 11 (36.7%) and seven (23.3%) of the target joints, respectively.