Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(3)
Exclusion of this study generated an RR of 0.83 (0.57, 1.21).
Studies considered to report predominantly nonserious infection generated an RR of 1.05 (0.89, 1.24).
Limiting analysis to studies defining GC exposure as "current use" generated an RR of 1.70 (1.97, 1.97) (Table 2).
Similar(57)
The observational studies generated a RR of 1.67 (1.87, 1.87), although significant heterogeneity was present.
Preferences were similar for a 5-yearly FS and an annual FOBT if both tests would generate a RR of 40% (FOBT: V=1.32; FS: V=1.23; P=0.40).
Comparatively, not a single study with more than 195 outcome events generated a RR < 0.50.
These data were then used to generate an RR-interval (RRI) time series.
Combining the two aforementioned studies generated a relative risk (RR) of mortality of 3.03 (95% CI 0.93 9.83, P = 0.06) [ 28].
RR carried out the comparative gene expression studies, participated in data analysis and generated an early version of the manuscript.
A family history of hematologic malignancy (ICD 200-208) resulted in a RR of 2.4 (95% CI: 1.4-4.0).
The rates of technical failure were significantly greater in the endovascular group compared with the surgical group (RR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.32, 2.73; P =.0005), which generated an absolute risk reduction of 16% (P =.0002).
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