Your English writing platform
Free sign upExact(2)
The difference between groups remained insignificant over time.
Differences in characteristics between groups remained insignificant (data not shown).
Similar(58)
The difference in treatment costs across the intervention groups remained insignificant when controlling for country-specific costs (Model 6).
This difference between groups remained until D2.
When corrected for joint damage at baseline, rheumatoid factor positivity, and the average DAS28 as possible confounders, the between-group difference remained insignificant (P = 0.57).
However, associations of the so modified disease counts with other ageing outcome indicators or with the inflammation score still remained insignificant in all age groups tested.
The differences remained insignificant between F3 and F9 and increased to 15.07 days at F12 with significant differences.
The association between material deprivation and coercive sex remained insignificant when the three SES measures were added (Model 2) (OR=1.34, 95% CI: 0.75 2.39).
The contributions from ER/PR status, age, BMI, or post-surgery adjuvant in predicting outcome remained insignificant in lymph node-status stratified groups (Table 7).
The difference remained insignificant after adjusting for the significantly different variables between the groups – chronic kidney disease, atrial fibrillation, QRS width, and device type (presence of defibrillator function) (P=0.189, odds ratio =2.83, 95% confidence interval: 0.59 13.44).
This changed the overall SMD to 0.55 (95 % CI -0.16, 1.27; z = 1.51, p = 0.13) and the difference between intervention and control conditions at post-treatment remained insignificant.
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