Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(11)
There was no difference in overall or cardiovascular mortality between the intensive compared with the standard glycemic control arms (78).
There was no increase in overall or cardiovascular mortality in the intensive compared with the standard glycemic control arms (11).
This difference may relate to a greater use of TZDs in the intensive compared with the standard arm.
At DCCT closeout, the mean A1C was significantly lower in the intensive compared with the conventional treatment group (7.4 vs. 9.1%, P < 0.0001).
After a mean follow-up of 6.5 years (range 3 9 years), the DCCT reported clinically and statistically highly significant reductions (range of 35 >70%) in microvascular end points in the intensive compared with the conventional therapy group.
In February 2008, the glycemia trial was terminated early due to higher mortality in the intensive compared with the standard glycemia strategies (10), while the antihypertensive and lipid-lowering components (not discussed here) were continued until Spring 2009.
Similar(49)
57 Nonetheless, it should be noted that the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial was discontinued prematurely because of a statistically significant increase in all-cause mortality in the intensive- compared with the standard-glycemic treatment groups.
There was a consistent effect on mortality from the intensive compared with standard treatment in the prespecified subgroup analyses (3).
Considering the incremental cost effectiveness of intensive compared with conventional glycaemic control, the more intensive strategy had an incremental ratio of around $Int16 900.
We report here the effect of the intensive, compared with standard, glycemia therapy on nonspine fractures, height change as a surrogate for vertebral fracture, falls, and bone mineral density (BMD).
There was no significant effect of intensive, compared with standard, glycemia therapy on the rate of nonspine fractures (hazard ratio [HR] 1.04 [95% CI 0.86 1.27]) (Supplementary Figure 1S).
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