The concordance tests were always assessed for the whole group of patients and in the two different subpopulations according to the lapse of time of occurrence of the local relapse from the first treatment of the primary tumour (within the first 5 years or later) or to the site of the local recurrence with respect to the primary tumour (same quadrant or different quadrant).
The following were excluded: cases not involving diaphyseal tibia fractures (AO/Muller type 42); cases other than those graded by the operating surgeon as grade III in the Gustilo Anderson (GA) classification [10]; and patients who underwent a primary amputation within the first three surgical episodes.
This interim analysis focuses on the following objectives: the number of patients who reported a significant treatment change (as defined for the primary endpoint) within the first 12 months of follow-up, the reasons for this change, and clinical outcomes at 12 months.
In 1996, Patel et al. [ 33] studied the hyperacute primary intraparenchymal hemorrhage using MRI, and their results indicated that, for hyperacute primary intraparenchymal hemorrhage (within the first few hours), GRE T2*WI can detect a hemorrhage lesion.
Primary hemorrhage (bleeding within the first 24 h of surgery) and secondary hemorrhage (bleeding more than 24 h after surgery, usually between 5 and 10 days) are reported to occur in 0.1 to 3%% of patients [15].
In addition, MAs III) was the primary product observed within the first few minutes of catalysis but remained mostly enzyme-bound until it was methylated a second time.
We also found that this induction takes place through the TLR2 dependent MyD88-IRAK1-TRAF6-p38 MAPK pathway, with the primary response occurring within the first hour of stimulation.
Of the 267 consecutive qualified CKD patients, 3 refused to participate in the follow-up survey and 2 were excluded because primary outcomes occurred within the first month of follow-up, leaving insufficient time for the establishment of temporal relationship.
The majority of dislocations following primary THR occur within the first 5 weeks after surgery (Bourne and Mehin 2004); therefore, patient-reported complications associated with a dislocation, such as re-admission and reoperation, should demonstrate a difference if, for example, one head size had a lower risk than another.
Did the speaker make his or her primary argument apparent within the first few sentences, or did it take awhile before you figured out what he or she was getting at?
