Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(3)
Fig. 2 Mean Attack Frequencies (mITT Populationa).
The same sources provided mean attack frequencies and durations (from which we calculated times spent in ictal and interictal states).
The mean migraine attack frequency was reduced from 1.4 to 2.5 attacks per month in the topiramate groups and 1.1 attacks per month in the placebo group from baseline, with mean attack frequencies varying from 5.1 to 5.8 attacks per month in the four groups.
Similar(57)
Mean age was 39.5 years and mean attack frequency was 2.7 per month.
For two efficacy parameters, mean attack frequency per 4 weeks in the entire double-blind period and the number of responders, CIN was as effective as SV.
Migraine-related variables were: migraine subtype (migraine without and/or with aura according to the ICHD-II criteria), mean attack frequency per month in the last 6 months, and preventive treatment, whether pharmacological or behavioural.
In these15 patients (2 male, 13 female; 6 with MwA, 9 with MwoA; mean attack frequency 3.33 ± 0.97 per month; mean age 37.3 ± 11.5 years, range 18 60 years; mean disease duration 15.3 ± 12.9 years) preventive migraine therapy with metoprolol was initiated by the headache outpatient center.
The mean attack frequency was 3.6/month in Group 1 and 3.7/month in Group 2. There was no significant difference in mean time required for migraine diagnosis and mean attack frequency between Group 1 and Group 2 (p = 0.53, p = 0.73; respectively) (Table 1).
The observed frequency reduction appeared strongly associated with the start of electrical stimulation to the SPG and not with effects from the surgical procedure, after which mean attack frequency increased (mean frequency at baseline 17.4 ± 14.5 /week vs. 20.2 ± 22.0 at the start of stimulation).
Mean attack frequency per month was 3.9 (range 1 10).
The mean attack frequency was 2.9 ± 2.5 (eCH) and 3.3 ± 2.9 (cCH) at baseline.
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