Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(3)
The designers prepared revisions for each new group.
Each scenario received anywhere between zero and ten comments, with the median number of comments for each scenario being 4. The median number of revisions for each scenario, including revisions by the original author and by other participants, was 3.
Therefore, the results found in this review should not be extrapolated to other ethnic minorities; instead, specific revisions for each of these minority groups should be made.
Similar(57)
The risk of revision for each design was compared with that for 9,549 cemented reference implants (Table 2).
The estimates for revision for each year were highest for those patients who received Austin Moore cementless prostheses (Table 3), but after 5 years the KM method overestimated the risk of revision by more than 2% for both types of prosthesis, and the relative biases were substantial.
Specifically, we (1) compared the risks of all-cause, aseptic, and septic revision in the OZ-CPE and CoCr-HXLPE bearing surfaces with those for CoCr-CPE bearings, and (2) evaluated the risks of all-cause, aseptic, and septic revision for each of the HXLPE types and compared them with those for CPE.
*Not estimable because there were too few patients and events in this group As for mortality, the impact of this hazard ratio can be translated to the absolute probability scale by considering the adjusted survival curve (fig 1), which shows the probability of not having a revision for each procedure group over time for patients who had not died previously.
We therefore separately analyzed the survival rates of the most common cementless designs performed for primary osteoarthritis in patients aged 55 years or older in Finland, and compared the risk of revision for each implant with that of the cemented implant reference group (Mäkelä et al. 2008b).
Try to distribute your revision easily so that you don't get bored and don't focus too much on one subject as it is important that you do plenty of revision for each one of your exams.
Moreover, he provided special supplements incorporating these revisions for purchasers of each edition.
Feedback from a small initial group of field test teachers, students, and the advisory board led to revisions for a second draft of each mini-unit which was used in the field test.
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