Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(24)
Effect sizes were small to medium in paired t tests (comparison of intervention to control) and paired analysis of key variables in the pre- and post-tests.
While avoiding the potential aggregation bias of subgroup analysis and allowing a more robust comparison of intervention characteristics, these trials are unfortunately limited by short follow-up periods and generally report only on risk factors or biological parameters, making it difficult to assess their impact on the long-term clinical outcomes observed in our analysis.
We perform a qualitative analysis of the language used to describe the comparison of intervention.
A broad range of outcomes were reported, making direct comparison of intervention effects problematic.
We also conducted a within-group comparison of intervention participants' accuracy of risk perception at baseline and post-decision aid.
Baseline comparison of intervention and control sites for the main trial aimed to limit this bias to some extent.
Similar(36)
Aim: This paper investigates how the comparison of interventions is documented in the abstracts of published RCTs.
If the reported outcomes are relevant and measured consistently to allow comparison of interventions across trials, such trials can inform decision making.
These are important findings, irrespective of the comparison of interventions.
The overlap hampers the comparison of interventions at RCT-level.
Because of this direct comparison of interventions was extremely difficult given the different technologies, interventions and outcomes reported.
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