Suggestions(1)
Exact(5)
Because this trial was not conclusive, it is important to determine whether the excess cases in the first year after immunoprophylaxis can be prevented by chemoprophylaxis.
However, because this trial was performed in a randomized fashion, we believe that this factor did not play an important role regarding our main outcomes.
Because this trial was a relatively large study with all included patients having a high risk of developing stress ulcers, and despite the appropriateness of excluding patients who underwent nonelective neurosurgery being debatable per se, the results were included in the main analysis.
Unlike these meta-analyses, this study excluded data from CALGB 90206 because this trial was open label, did not report independently confirmed data, used North American centres that have limited experience of IFN and patients seemed to have a comparatively poorer prognosis.
We used this approach because CaFHS administration officers recruited mothers to the trial in the course of their normal work responsibilities, and because this trial was pragmatic by design we judged this method as being desirable because it demonstrated that randomisation could be done within normal workflows.
Similar(55)
However, this trial was criticized because of its nonadjusted analysis.
This trial was limited because the participants and acupuncturists could not be blinded.
This trial was stopped because of a low inclusion rate and the completion of another similar trial [ 7].
After 2 months this trial was terminated because of a higher mortality rate in the dronedarone treatment group due to progressive heart failure.
This trial was chosen because it was a large randomized study that compared every-three-week (Q3W) and weekly (QW) darbepoetin alfa dosing schedules, which are the two schedules listed in the darbepoetin alfa product information [ 13, 18].
4 This trial was chosen because a large set of radiographs has been scored twice independently, by the same two readers, thus providing a unique opportunity to learn about agreement in scoring negative and positive changes in individual joints.
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