Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(16)
The length of the treatment, which was slightly longer in the study group (by 5.5 months), can be explained by the different types of treatment used; indeed, extraction treatment generally takes longer than its non-extractive counterpart.
The discrepancy between the two studies may be due to dissimilar populations of patients and to the differences in the time to inclusion, which was longer in the study by Monnet et al. [8] than that in our study (6.1 vs. 1.7 h) explaining the more pronounced hemodilution effect in their study.
Standard treatment was maintained, even if the patients were no longer in the study.
However, the average length of stay was longer in the study than in the control group.
The period between cerclage insertion and delivery was significantly longer in the study group (82.9 versus 52.1 days, p = 0.045).
Hence, the participants who stayed longer in the study may be healthier than those who dropped out.
Similar(44)
First, the study follow-up (or time to assessment of response) tended to be somewhat longer in the studies in which rates of DAS-based remission and rates of EULAR moderate response were derived than in studies used to derive ACR and good EULAR response rates.
Under the circumstances, George Morrow, executive vice president for commercial operations at Amgen -- which lobbied for the provision -- contends that there is no point any longer in conducting the study.
The high delay rate that they report is explained by their strict inclusion criteria (any patient not admitted immediately); however, the average delay was markedly longer in the Brazilian study (17.8 hours) compared to the 6 hours in our study.
(Two schools were no longer participants in the study at that point.
A second possible explanation for our findings is that SP is no longer effective in the study area which would again make any comparisons between IST with SP and SP- IPTp unhelpful.
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