Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(1)
All unacceptable maneuvers were excluded before reproducibility calculations were performed [ 24].
Similar(59)
Known disturbed days, for example associated with satellite maneuvers, are excluded.
Non-consenting patients, patients on mechanical ventilation, and those unable to tolerate a passive leg raise (PLR) maneuver were excluded (e.g., unable to lie supine or had pain with PLR).
A total of 29 subjects were recruited between the two sites; however, 2 of the subjects could not complete the required number of successful Valsalva maneuvers and were excluded from the final analysis.
Subjects that did not provide at least two technically acceptable maneuvers after eight attempts were excluded.
All HCM patients underwent assessment of LV outflow tract obstruction gradient, and those with a resting or provocable gradient (on Valsalva maneuver) >30 mm Hg were excluded.
Patients were excluded if the PLR maneuver was contraindicated (intracranial hypertension), if PLR was supposed to be unreliable (venous compression stocking and intraabdominal hypertension) or if it was impossible to perform vascular Doppler measurements.
Also, patients were excluded if they reported the need for manual maneuvers (digital insertion into the rectum, perianal pressure, or vaginal splinting) or frequent use of enemas to evacuate stool.
Differential diagnoses, such as a typical atrioventricular reentrant tachycardia and bundle branch reentry, were excluded by established deductive criteria during EPS in combination with diagnostic maneuvers, activation mapping, and entrainment.
Subjects with orthostatic hypotension at baseline were excluded during the initial screening visit by a series of five orthostatic maneuvers.
Subjects who were not able to perform successful FEV1 and FVC maneuvers or had an FEV1 less than 70% of the mean predicted value or an FEV1 less than 1.5 liters were excluded from methacholine challenge.
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