Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(5)
This relationship is depicted graphically with time on the x-axis, probability (of being an ITT) from generalised linear model results on the y-axis, and raw study values (0, not ITT; 1, ITT) displayed as points.
Proportion of patients achieving an increase FEV1 ≥ 0.100 L above baseline at various times post-dose on Day 1 (ITT population; post hoc analyses).
As depicted in Figure 1, ITT analysis in the patient population revealed that eradication rates were 88.9% (80/90) for LOAD-10, 90% (81/90) for LOAD-7, 89.4% (161/180) for combined LOAD regimen patients, and 73.3% (66/90) for LAC.
a Based on the ACOEM criteria, this study protocol is intended to provide a high-quality score (Randomization – 1, Blinded Allocation – 1, Baseline Comparability – 1, Patient blinding – 1, Interventionist blinding – 0, Assessor Blinding – 1, Control of co-interventions – 0.5, Compliance – 1.0, Drop Out < 20% – 1, Timing of assessments – 1, ITT analysis – 1 (Total score 9.5/11) High-quality ≥ 8.0.
We will employ 2 analytical approaches in these analyses: (1) ITT based on the original randomized design and examining each intermediate outcome separately as an endpoint; and (2) per-protocol analyses linking together intermediate steps and conditional on specific prior outcomes or achievements in an earlier step, such as high FOI.
Similar(55)
2. Study design: Intention to treat vs. completers' analysis Subgroup analysis for study design (ITT vs. completers' analysis) (Table 16) ITT: intention to treat.
One patient was excluded from the ITT population because of unknown implant allocation during the core study (n = 48, ITT population).
Heterogeneity across countries was more marked for the uncorrected cure rates at day 28 (ITT and ePP: p<0.001), while at day 42 the heterogeneity test was borderline significant only in the ePP population (ITT: p = 0.186; ePP: p = 0.051).
Texas Instruments, helped earlier in the week by a favorable brokerage report, gained 1 1/2, to 146 1/2; National Semiconductor 1/2, to 15 1/4; ITT 1/2, to 48, and General Electric 1 1/2, to 79 3/4.
Figure 5 Difference in mean change from baseline in MADRS individual item scores at week 8 (ITT population; LOCF).
Parametric CBF, OEF and CBV images were generated using in-house developed software (written in IDL, 6.2, ITT, Boulder CO, USA) [23].
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