Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(2)
Exact(1)
Given that our results are based on a cross-sectional study, we should be careful not to make causal interpretations of the correlations.
Similar(59)
Biases such as recall errors in self-reported mobile phone use, lack of confounding control, e.g. of other aspects of mobile phone use than RF fields, trained behaviors, and pubertal development, makes causal interpretations impossible.
The cross-sectional design of the study made causal interpretations difficult.
The possibility of making causal interpretations of the findings is therefore limited.
Furthermore, the cross-sectional study design of the survey prevents us from making causal interpretations, while results may be over-inflated through the use of self-reported data.
A second limitation of the current study is the cross-sectional design, making causal interpretations of associations between diagnostic criteria and risk of cardiovascular disease difficult.
Because we consider self-rated general health and experiencing depressive symptoms during the week preceding the interview to be predictors of professional health care use and subjective unmet need during the last year, caution is needed when making causal interpretations.
However, because of the cross-sectional design of this study, no clear causal interpretations can be made.
We realize we cannot make causal claims about our results.
Again, we cannot make causal inferences from the data.
As epidemiologists, we make causal inferences all the time.
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