Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(4)
In addition, because both groups were likely to have recall bias, the rates of underreporting are probably comparable.
Both groups were likely to overestimate transmission risk; 73% of cases and 57% of controls considered oral sex with ejaculation as high-risk behaviour (Table 2).
First, several patients in both groups were likely to have received Plasma-Lyte 148 before the institution of CPB, as Plasma-Lyte 148 was at the clinical research site the default supplementary fluid for volume loading in either group.
While both groups were likely to be treated with at least one additional antibiotic during their hospitalization (74% of those treated with 1 g, and 61% of those treated with 2 g), this difference was not significant.
Similar(56)
The thing is that both groups are likely to identify with many of the same values.
Both groups are likely to have their asylum claims assessed by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees at Nauru's beach-side village that can accommodate up to 300 refugees.
Both groups are likely to rush their listings onto the market once it's clear prices are falling.
Third, while many risk factors are not available for comparison, the comorbid burden in both groups is likely to be considerable.
In addition to crime victimisation, the rate of substance-use disorders in both groups is likely to be underestimated here, due to less than perfect detection and recording of substance problems on the VPCR.
We have provided proof of principle of this approach by demonstrating low P values for phenotypic similarity between BPD cases from the same pedigrees and between unrelated cases with provisional clinical diagnoses of syndromic BPD, in which both groups are likely to share a causal genetic variant.
On the other hand, the patients with ear, nose, or throat cancer, who made up the majority of patients in both study groups, were likely to have received chemoradiotherapy, which could have a possible negative effect on their immunological defences.
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