Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(6)
Group I (cases) included 37 eyes of 33 patients having DME with NSD and Group II (controls) included 30 eyes of 21 patients having DME without NSD.
Group I (cases) included 37 eyes of 33 patients who were diagnosed as DME with NSD on OCT and Group II (controls) included 30 eyes of 21 patients who had DME without NSD.
Alopecia along the temporal extension of the incision line was imperceptible in all group I cases.
Conversely, opioids were not found in Group I cases, but were present in 5/16 (31%) Group II cases.
For example, 17 of 23 group I cases (74%) ever prescribed an SSRI had at least one prescription for citalopram, accounting for 86% of the total number of prescriptions.
Patients were divided randomly into two equal groups: group I (cases, 25 patients) were subjected to additional intervention, early FOB during the first 6 to 12 hours from admission; while group II (control, 25 patients) received the conventional treatment and NIPPV only.
Similar(54)
The case cohort was further divided into 2 groups: (i) cases with 2 abortions, and (ii) cases with 3 or more abortions.
Table 2 Incidence of lingual nerve damage and IAN damage of each group Lingual nerve damage IAN damage IAN damage rate Group I (1735 cases) 3 cases 6 cases 0.35 Group II (2063 cases) 6 cases 23 cases 1.1 Group III (1119 cases) 3 cases 3 cases 0.27 Total (4917 cases) 12 cases 32 cases 0.65.
The cohort was divided into a survivor group I (12 cases) and a non-survivor group II (15 cases).
Group I included the cases with long-standing RA, and some of its synovitis histopathological features were significantly different from those of group II, including lymphoid cell and plasma cell infiltration.
Frequencies of the qualitative CAG repeat lengths (<19, 19 and >19 repeats) were compared in two groups: (i) RSA cases from FMH (N = 46) versus controls (N = 68) (subsample 1) and (ii) RSA cases from LFC (N = 71) versus controls (N = 87) (subsample 2).
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