Essential And Deadly Pfizer Licensed Compound Library Errors You Might End Up Doing

Матеріал з HistoryPedia
Версія від 15:37, 22 травня 2017, створена Iranchild1 (обговореннявнесок) (Створена сторінка: Figure 1 Annual prevalence data of musculoskeletal disorders (workers engaged in jewelry manufacturing, N �C 385; control, N �C 79) Figure 7 Length of the d...)

(різн.) ← Попередня версія • Поточна версія (різн.) • Новіша версія → (різн.)
Перейти до: навігація, пошук

Figure 1 Annual prevalence data of musculoskeletal disorders (workers engaged in jewelry manufacturing, N �C 385; control, N �C 79) Figure 7 Length of the discomfort (Group 1, N �C 385; Group 2, N �C 79) Annual prevalence Figure 1 represents the values of annual prevalence of musculoskeletal discomfort for both the groups (Group 1 �C workers engaged in jewelry manufacturing, Group 2 �C control). The result revealed that the neck (33.51%), low back (66.49%), and knee (76.10%) were the most affected body parts among the workers engaged in jewelry Selleckchem Pifithrin �� manufacturing. The percentage of responses for upper back, wrist, shoulder, and elbow were reported Temsirolimus (CCI-779, NSC 683864) Therefore, these responses were not considered for further analysis. For the control group low back, neck, upper back, and wrist were the most affected body parts. The prevalence rate of knee, low back and neck of both the groups were compared using statistical software NCSS 2004. The Chi-square tests were performed. The ��2 values for knee, low back and neck were 129.29, 37.09, and 6.17, respectively. The results of the Chi-square tests showed that the annual prevalence of knee (P Selleck Pfizer Licensed Compound Library were not been conducted. Figure 2 Weekly prevalence data of musculoskeletal disorders (workers engaged in jewelry manufacturing, N �C 385; control, N �C 79) Comparison of prevalence data of current study with literature The prevalence data of the present study of low back, neck, and knee were compared with the data available in literature and presented in Tables ?Tables11�C3. Table 1 Comparison of low �C back prevalence data with literature Table 3 Comparison of Knee prevalence data with literature Table 2 Comparison of Neck prevalence data with literature The above result [Table 1] revealed that the annual prevalence of low back pain of the present study significantly higher in most of the cases as compared to other literature. Result of weekly prevalence is lower than the values reported in the literature. The above table revealed that the annual prevalence of neck pain of the present study in some cases significantly lower and in some cases significantly higher as compared to other literature. Result of weekly prevalence is significantly lower.