Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(2)
Exclusion criteria for both groups were prior knee injury requiring surgery less than 1 year prior to the BL evaluation.
Exclusion criteria for both groups were prior abdominal surgery (except appendectomy, inguinal hernia repair), and intake of medication other than oral contraception.
Similar(58)
Owing to chance factors, the treatment and the waiting-list groups were, prior to treatment, homogenous in terms of demographic variables but heterogeneous regarding headache frequency, intensity and headache index as well as on their additional disabilities measured by the RPQ, SCL-90-R and SF-36.
The major difference between the EUR and NE groups was prior exposure to psychostimulants.
Baseline factors that were significantly associated with hospitalization in the olanzapine-LAI group were: prior suicide threats with an odds ratio (OR) of 7.1 (95% CI: 2.2; 23.0), and previous hospitalization with an OR of 5.84 (95% CI: 1.92; 17.78).
Time 1 measures for both groups were completed prior to the program beginning.
In addition, both groups were similar in prior historical CVD diagnoses (e.g., prior myocardial infarction and stroke) and with regard to interventions received to open occluded coronary vessels for their most recent AMI.
Participants from both groups were assessed at inclusion, prior to discharge and at 12 months after inclusion.
Both groups were assessed at baseline (prior to randomisation) and at 20 weeks (following ten-week intervention period plus a ten-week follow up period).
ORRs in both groups were similar per ICR, regardless of prior chemotherapy in the R/M setting; per IR, afatinib showed higher ORR in patients with prior chemotherapy in the R/M setting (supplementary Table S2, available at Annals of Oncology online).
However, both groups were balanced for the clinical status prior to transplantation and only 5% of patients were in 1st or 2nd relapse and refractory disease.
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