Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(1)
In our analysis, the patients were divided into two broad groups: Group 1: those with normal calibre ureters and normal bladders (Primary group) Group 2: those with megaureters, hydronephrosis and abnormal bladders (Secondary group).
Similar(59)
The primary study group (group I) was 48 adults with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis who had a long fusion to the sacrum (from T10 or higher) as an adult.
In the case of primary care groups, group information had to first be derived from the CAPE database and then added to the OHIP data.
Although the proportion of patients with recurrence was 9% in the mesh group, those in the primary group had a recurrence rate of 22% 6 months after surgery [14].
Implant survival and failure rates were similar in the primary group and in the revision group.
With regard to the extent of resection of the primary pathology (gross total vs subtotal) and tumour volume of the primary group the three groups shared similar features.
We compared the RNA concentration in the different samples and found a significant difference, when comparing the primary group, the recurrent group and the non-recurrent group.
The relative difference between the SUVs of these tumours (∆SUV) was determined and compared between the second primary group and metastatic disease group.
Compared to the control group which had no history of PCV7 vaccination, the immune responses to all serogroup 6 members were higher in primary group and highest in booster group.
The absence of statistical significance concerning survival between the primary group and secondary group does not necessarily imply that there was no difference; i.e. the analysis was open to type-II error due to the limited number of cases available in the study group and the comparatively short follow-up.
Differentiation of the tumours was better in the second primary group than in the metastatic disease group, although in both groups tumours were most frequently poorly differentiated.
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