Your English writing platform
Free sign upSuggestions(5)
Exact(7)
Quality of life was better in the experimental group (Global Self-assessment and Rotterdam Symptom Checklist).
Results revealed that the recovery of nerve conduction velocity was better in the experimental group than that in the control group (P < 0.05; Table 1).
Although the response rates were better in the experimental arm, there was no significant difference in the overall survival (51 vs 43%, P=0.063).
Animal experiment results revealed that the recoveries of foot ulcer healing, nerve conduction velocity, nerve fiber number, and ultrastructure of myelin sheath and regenerating nerve were better in the experimental group than those in the control group.
Among patients with preoperative grade I spondylolisthesis, 2-year outcomes were consistently better in the Experimental group although these differences were not statistically significant due to the limited sample size in the subgroup analysis (Table 2).
Specific HRQL domains that are expected to be better in the experimental group are: physical and role function, fatigue, dysphagia and eating restrictions ◦ is associated with poorer HRQL during treatment.
Similar(53)
A relative standard deviation of 0.55% is an indication of better prediction in the experimental design.
There was a trend towards better survival in the experimental group (table 3).
Pain flare-ups seemed to be better manageable in the experimental intervention group than in the usual care group.
Therefore, it is possible that this extra social and financial attention could be partly an explanation for better effects in the experimental group as compared to the control group.
12 13 Among them, daptomycin in combination with rifampin or gentamicin has not been associated with a better response in the experimental model of endocarditis, 14 15 while daptomycin plus antistaphylococcal β-lactams, nafcillin or cloxacillin was effective for treating patients with refractory MRSA bacteraemia.
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