Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(2)
A decreasing trend across quarters was also observed for behind-the-neck treatments on pets (p = 0.002).
Decreasing likelihood of use was also observed for behind-the-neck treatment on pets (p = 0.01), but no seasonal variation was observed.
Similar(58)
There was no significant difference in noise between the RC-liver PET and shortened liver PET (p = 0.22).
The noise in the liver PET was significantly lower than in the RC-liver PET and shortened liver PET (p = 0.016 and 0.019).
CT had a significantly lower diagnostic performance than PET (p = 0.021).
Smoking habit differed between the two periods (58.4% for after-PET vs. 70.5% for before-PET; p = 0.03).
The mean number of diagnostic tests in patients with spiculated nodules did not differ between the periods (5.3 for before-PET vs. 5.1 for after-PET; p = 0.4).
A greater proportion of patients with smoking history completed the study as compared with those who were lost to follow-up for both the before-PET (p = 0.002) and after-PET periods (p < 0.001).
Patients in the before-PET period had to wait 41.4 days, on average, before receiving a diagnosis as compared with 24.0 days, on average, for patients in the after-PET period who did not undergo PET (p < 0.001).
In a single-center study of patients with PTCL (n = 34) treated in the first line with 6 cycles of CHOP-21 (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone every 3 weeks), prolonged survival was observed for patients with negative versus positive interim PET (after cycle 3; P = 0.02) and final PET (P < 0.0001) [ 29].
There were no significant differences between pathologic tumor size and recorded size on US, CT, or MRI with or without CAD (P > 0.05), but there was a significant size difference between pathologic tumor size and recorded size on FDG-PET (P = 0.007).> -wrap-foot>> -wrap-foot> CT computed tomography, MRI magnetic resonance imaging, FDG-PET 18-fludeoxyglucose positron emission tomography.
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