Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(7)
All monitored physiologic variables except for HR, MAP, and CBF were unchanged from the baseline values throughout the cooling, maintenance, and rewarming phases.
One hundred sixty-eight patients made the final study sample; 88 were included in group 1, 80 in group 2. The two groups were well-matched for demographic and clinical characteristics (except for HR and RR which resulted significatively higher in group 2) and for previous medical history (clinical, demographic and laboratory characteristics showed in Table 4).
Except for HR, all hemodynamic parameters changed significantly after volume replacement (Table 2).
Except for HR, all outcome variables were log-transformed to produce normally distributed residuals.
Hemodynamics differences between the groups were not documented, except for HR (P > 0.05).
The groups were shown to be similar during the first evaluation for all the variables studied, except for HR at rest (t = 2.683 and p = 0.011).
Similar(53)
AYAs also were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with stage III/IV disease and high-grade disease, except for HR-/HER2+ breast cancer, than were older women.
Specifically, for the subgroup of trials including at least 100 patients per arm (n = 19 trials), FOLFIRINOX, GE M/NAB-Pand GEM/NAB-P and GE M/erlotinib/bevacizumabanked treatments weree FOLFIRINOX was associathe with statistically significant hazard ratreatments over all treatments except for GEM/NAB-P (HR: 0.85, 95% Cl 0.47-1.33) and GEM/erlotinib/bevacizumab (HR: 0.90, 95% Cl 0.41-1.48).
Among medical patients, when corrected for age groups and APACHE-II scores, there were no statistically significant associations between baseline plasma levels and 6-month mortality, except for zinc (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 1.12, P = 0.026).
Both the drugs showed significant (except for 6 hr) protections in all the fixation intervals.
There was no difference in baseline characteristics except for age, HR and diastolic blood pressure (P < 0.05).
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