What Are So Extraordinary Over Sulfatase?

0.1 for Sulfatase windows 2001; SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL, USA). Descriptive statistics was presented as mean and standard deviation (��?SD) for parametric and median and interquartile range (IQR) for nonparametric numerical data; or as frequency and percentage for nonnumerical data. Mann�CWhitney test assessed the statistical significance of the difference of a nonparametric variable between two study groups. Kruskal�CWallis test assessed the statistical significance of the difference between more than two study group ordinal variables. Correlation analysis assessed the strength of association between two quantitative variables. Chi-square test examined the relationship between two qualitative variables and Fisher's exact test was used when applicable. P-value ��?0.05 was considered significant, and ��?0.01 was considered highly significant. In the photoaging group, the mean age was 60.2?��?5.9 years. They were nine (52.9%) females and eight (47.1%) males. Six subjects (35.3%) had Fitzpatrick skin type III, and 11 see more (64.7%) had Fitzpatrick skin type IV. Nine subjects (52.9%) had Glogue grade III, and eight (47.1%) had Glogue grade IV. In the chronological aging group, the mean age was 58.9?��?5.6 years. They were nine (56.2%) females and seven (43.8%) males. Nine subjects (56.2%) had Fitzpatrick skin type III, and seven (43.8%) had Fitzpatrick skin type IV. Nine subjects (56.2%) had Glogue grade III, and seven (43.8%) had Glogue grade IV. There was no statistically significant difference in age between photoaging and chronological aging groups (P?>?0.05). In the control group, the mean age was 23.7?��?2.2 years. They were 17 (94.4%) males and 1 (5.6%) female. Seventeen subjects (94.4%) had Fitzpatrick skin type III and one (5.6%) had Fitzpatrick skin type IV. All the subjects of this group had Glogue grade I. Gender distribution showed a high statistically significant difference between the three groups (P??0.05). On the other hand, the difference was this website highly significant regarding the comparison of the control group with each of the chronological aging and photoaging groups (P??0.05), while the difference was highly significant regarding the comparison of the control group with the photoaging groups (P?