Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigThe phrase "analysis were not substantively" is not correct in English.
It seems to be a fragment and lacks proper grammatical structure, as "analysis" is singular and should be paired with "was" instead of "were."
Example: "The analysis was not substantively thorough, leading to incomplete conclusions."
Alternatives: "the analysis was not significant" or "the analysis lacked substance."
Exact(1)
We believe that this is unlikely as the results from the sensitivity analysis were not substantively different to those presented.
Similar(59)
The weighted analysis was not substantively different from the unweighted analysis, so we report the unweighted analysis only.
In contrast to the heterogeneity in results by health outcome, the results of the sensitivity analysis omitting patients with rhinitis alone were not substantively different from the main results, indicating that this subgroup did not bias the key findings.
We completed interview recruiting once saturation was reached (e.g., new interviews were not substantively adding to our analysis).
While several socio-demographic characteristics of offspring retained for analysis were statistically significantly different from those of offspring not retained, the differences were not substantively important with one exception (Table 1).
To counterbalance this issue, we performed a sensitivity analysis among patients with only nosocomial pneumonia, and the results in this group were not substantively different from those in the overall population.
Other recommendations, like improving K-12 science education, were not substantively addressed.
Alternative categorizations yielded results that were not substantively different.
Similarly, when the veterinary assessors were included in the model as fixed effects the parameter estimates were not substantively altered.
Population-weighted estimates of these proportions were not substantively different.
After adjusting for dietary factors, findings were not substantively changed.
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