The phrase "after correction for confounding variables" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in research or statistical contexts when discussing the adjustment of data to account for variables that may influence the results.
Example: "The results showed a significant difference in outcomes after correction for confounding variables."
Alternatives: "after adjusting for confounding factors" or "following the adjustment for confounding variables."
No significant association was seen between GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor use and either long-term mortality or long-term MACE rates after correction for confounding variables.
However, after correction for confounding variables, the addition of MTH to PCI only improved 24-hour survival but not neurologic outcomes [ 17].
Furthermore, multivariate analysis showed that, after correction for confounding variables, GalNAc-T6 expression remained an independent prognostic indicator of overall survival (P=0.024).
After correction for confounding variables, aggression was associated with decreased gyrification only in the right precentral ROI and right lateral occipital ROI, β = −.13, p =.01 and β = −.10, p =.02, respectively.
Furthermore, multivariate analysis demonstrated that, after correction for confounding variables, the combination of strong ZNF143+ expression and high MIB-1 index remained an independent prognostic indicator for DSS (P=0.05) as well as distant metastasis (P=0.001).
Furthermore, multivariate analysis demonstrated that, after correction for confounding variables, GalNAc-T3+ expression remained an independent prognostic indicator for DSS, as did ECOG PS, Fuhrman's grade, and VI (P=0.03, 0.02, 0.002 and 0.001, respectively).
After correcting for confounding variables, none of the underlying task difficulty scales changed over time.
However, with combination of these variables and after correction for possibly confounding variables, we found that full participation in a harm reduction programme (HRP) was associated with a lower risk of HIV and HCV infection in ever-injecting drug users (DU), compared to no participation [incidence rate ratio 0.43 (95% CI 0.21 0.87) and 0.36 (95% CI 0.13 1.03), respectively].
We have shown that, after correction for confounding factors some treatment and organizational factors are related with outcome in patients with sCAP.
