|
|
|
|
|
|
by sackintor
3029 days ago
|
|
|
If the authors were using kg/m^-1 instead of kg/m^-2 with the given information (96.8 kg; BMI, 30.2 kg m−1; height not provided), the patient would need to be over 3m (nearly 10 ft) tall. This seems unlikely. If it were true, it would probably make for an even more interesting case report. Peer review for less well known pay-to-publish ($1800) journals like this one is by no means a guarantee of quality: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full |
|
|
kg/m^-2 -> kg/m^2 (or kg * m^-2)
;)