Now consider the use of Table 1 within the nursing research article. When reading research articles, many people will skip over the tables and figures. Why do you think the authors included it? Was it...

Now consider the use of Table 1 within the nursing research article. When reading research articles, many people will skip over the tables and figures. Why do you think the authors included it? Was it helpful? Why or why not? Note: I can't post the article but here's a paragraph where Table 1 is mentioned. RESULTS Patient selection and baseline characteristics Between 2010 and 2015, 132 women were diagnosed with ovarian cancer at the Diakonessenhuis. Four patients were excluded from further analysis because they were treated elsewhere. Therefore, 128 patients were included in this study. Baseline characteristics for patients aged


Extracted text: Original Article Table 1 Patient characteristics per age group All patients <75 years="" 275="" years="" (n="128)" (n="84)" (n="44)" p="" values*t="" median="" age="" in="" years="" (range)="" 67="" (range="" 31-94)="" stage="" of="" disease="" figo="" i-illa="" 23="" (18%)="" 19="" (23%)="" 4="" (9%)="" 0.06="" figo="" ilb-iv="" 105="" (82%)="" 65="" (77%)="" 40="" (95%)="" tumor="" morphology="" serous="" 72="" (56%)="" 51="" (61%)="" 21="" (48%)="" other="" 56="" (44%)="" 33="" (39%)="" 23="" (52%)="" 0.16="" ecog="" score="" 0-1="" 37="" (29%)="" 29="" (35%)="" 8="" (18%)="" 2-4="" 3="" (2%)="" o="" (0%)="" 3="" (7%)="" 0.003="" unknown="" 88="" (69%)="" 55="" (65%)="" 33="" (75%)="" cci="" score="" 94="" (73%)="" 67="" (80%)="" 27="" (61%)="" 21="" 34="" (27%)="" 17="" (20%)="" 17="" (39%)="" 0.03="" polypharmacy="" no="" 106="" (83%)="" 75="" (89%)="" 31="" (70%)="" yes="" 22="" (17%)="" 9="" (11%)="" 13="" (30%)="" 0.007="" adl/iadl="">