Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(60)
Databases searched were: All EBM Reviews; Embase; Medline (No Revisions); Medline (Non-Indexed Citations), and CAB Abstracts.
The searches were run in February 2014 on the following databases: All EBM Reviews; Embase; Medline (No Revisions); Medline (Non-Indexed Citations); CAB Abstracts.
There were no revisions for stem loosening but 2 stems were revised for fracture — both with a defective cement mantle proximally.
Revising the guide was considered after the first five interviews; no revisions were required.
Except for the patient who was revised due to infection before the 5-year follow-up, there were no revisions up to 10 years.
He apparently requested no revisions.
No revisions were required for aseptic loosening.
No revisions, subluxations, dislocations, or infections were seen.
There were no revisions for polyethylene wear, osteolysis or tibial insert dissociation.
There were no revisions for loosening, patella problems, or tibial post fracture.
The Exeter patients had no revisions for aseptic loosening (0%) of the femoral stem.
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