Your English writing platform
Free sign upExact(1)
There was no change in the proportion of patients treated with corticosteroids: 75% before implementation compared to 70% after implementation (absolute difference: −6%; 95% CI: −2 to +14%; p = 0.1429) (Table 2).
Similar(59)
Additional file 1: Estimated differences in diagnostic intervals (DIs) after and during CPP implementation compared to before, by cancer type.
The sensitivity analyses did not alter the overall results as the median DI was still lower both during and after the implementation compared to before; this was found for both worst and best case scenario.
A quasi-experimental study design was used to study the change in outcomes (access and costs) in "treatment" facilities (those located in opt-out states) before and after opt-out policy implementation, compared to facilities located in non-opt-out states over the same time period.
The Urban Institute found 82.3percentt of workers reported being offered coverage in June 2013, before the law's implementation, compared to 83percentt in March 2015.
Six articles asserted that among the populations studied, the number of expected deaths reduced after the HWS implementation compared to before that [ 15- 20].
There was 44.22% of children who came to receive scheduled vaccines on-time on the preset monthly immunization date after the MCCM implementation compared to 34.49% before the MCCM (p < 0.001); among the not on-time visits, almost all children received the scheduled vaccine(s) in the consecutive month (table not shown).
Therefore, we developed an active implementation model to test the active implementation compared to the usual implementation of DMPs [ 28].
Comparisons were made for different time periods: one, three and 24 months before implementation compared with one, three and 12 months post-implementation.
To perform the cost-effectiveness analysis, costs and effects of patients treated according to care as usual (before implementation) will be compared to costs and effects of patients treated according to the ultra short stay programme (after implementation).
The average Charlson score was also very similar after ICD-10 implementation, 0.64 (before) compared to 0.63 (after), Table 2. Additionally, the Charlson scores (grouped as 0, 1–2 and 3+ points) did not differ considerably across provinces, see Table 3.
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