Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(5)
Exact(26)
We also analyzed rating results between both study groups according to the dissemination channel of the information but did not detect any significant differences (not presented here).
The mean difference in knowledge and attitude scores between both study groups was 8.31 (p < 0.001) and 2.39 (p < 0.001), respectively.
As shown, no statistically significant differences between both study groups in terms of age, gender, medical discipline, and practice type (p > .05 each) could be detected, thereby demonstrating an effective randomization process.
Regarding total hospital costs incurred by hospital stay and NIV gas (air or helium), there was no statistical difference between both study groups: difference in mean = −279$ by fixed-effect model, 95% CI −2052 to 1493, p = 0.76, I 2: 85% (Fig. 6).
Unsolicited AEs were equally balanced between both study groups (Table S1).
There was no gender bias and only minor age differences between both study groups (Table 4).
Similar(34)
Recurrence of pain episodes was a quite common phenomenon in the year after delivery but seems to be independent from the differences in improvement on resumption of normal activities, participation (work) and reduced fears between the both study groups.
Similarity of improvement between the both study groups at one year after delivery raises the question whether either approach is superior to the other or to no treatment at all.
To study differences, between deceased patients in both study groups, mixed effects models were used (SAS GLIMMIX), with the GP as a cluster.
Variability in secretion layer volume and thickness between subjects was large in both study groups.
A significant positive association was found in both study groups between the degree of reduction of A1C and the degree of reduction in hs-CRP; these improvements were especially significant among STG patients who were at the highest CV risk (hs-CRP >3 mg/L), and their A1C levels dropped the most.
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