Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(1)
After excluding 1951 clients with no follow-up information and 126 clients with missing, relevant baseline data, there were 95.5% (54,090) with follow-up and complete baseline data, including 3819 deaths.
Similar(56)
Our study population was limited to the 1,299 participants who did not have a diagnosis of diabetes at the 2005 2006 CARMRI visit (hereafter called baseline), who were fasting ≥8 hours, who had valid measurements of A1C, fasting glucose, fructosamine, glycated albumin, and 1,5-AG, who were not missing case status information, and who were not missing relevant covariate data at baseline.
For analyses evaluating new-onset MetS, we used a sample free of MetS at baseline, excluding individuals with MetS at baseline (n = 1,082 or 36%) and those missing relevant follow-up covariates (n = 722).
Therefore, chance of missing relevant documents is low.
For GAM analyses, subjects with missing relevant covariates were excluded.
Therefore, we may have missed relevant cases.
Therefore, we may have missed relevant literature.
It is possible that we may have missed relevant evidence.
Using one strategy alone would miss relevant records.
Every review has the potential to miss relevant studies.
24 Our analysis may also have missed relevant confounders.
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