Suggestions(2)
Exact(4)
A total of 122 patients with hip fracture, aged 81.3 ± 6.5 years, were evaluated using the MFAC and Elderly Mobility Scale (EMS).
Intragroup differences (i.e., baseline vs. 2 years) were evaluated using the Mann–Whitney test and Wilcoxon test.
Differences by age (<40, 40 49, 50 59, 60 69 and ≥70 years) were evaluated using a similar LRT, but modeling a linear trend by fitting the median age for each of these defined categories.
Twenty five RHTN patients (15 non-T2D and 10 T2D, 15 males, 10 females; age range 34 to 70 years) were evaluated using the following parameters: BMI (body mass index), biochemical analysis, serum adiponectinemia, echocardiogram and ambulatory electrocardiograph heart rate variability (HRV) in time and frequency domains stratified into three periods: 24 hour, day time and night time.
Similar(55)
The incidence of VFs at 2 and 4 years was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method.
Gross financial savings for each intervention year were evaluated using general linear modeling of the difference in claims cost (all hospital claims paid by HCF) from the base period to each specific intervention year while controlling for base cost and additional covariates delineated above.
The likely thermal performance of the building design throughout the year was evaluated using dynamic thermal simulation (DTS) with local hourly standard weather data.
The seasonality of type 1 diabetes incidence throughout the year was evaluated using the Rayleigh test.
The clinical outcome following regenerative cartilage surgery after 1 year was evaluated using the IKDC and the Lysholm Score.
Furthermore, the patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) >60 mL/min/1.73 m at entry were selected from all patients followed for 4 years and were evaluated using the same analysis.
Differences between time-tradeoff and willingness-to-pay responses for avoiding influenza in a 1-year-old as compared with a 14-year-old were evaluated using the sign test for paired observations.
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