Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(9)
Fewer were supportive of a reduction in screening frequency for those at lower risk.
Chi-square tests were used to explore differences in screening frequency for high risk patients across practice styles.
The results of this study indicate that women are generally positive towards risk-stratified mammography screening based on genetic risk assessment; although it will be important to develop effective communication materials to minimise resistance to reduction in screening frequency for those at lower genetic risk.
Women were positive about adjusting the frequency of mammography screening in line with personal genetic risk, but it will be important to develop effective communication materials to minimise resistance to reducing screening frequency for those at lower genetic risk.
Although the majority of women were enthusiastic about a risk-stratified approach to breast screening, this was particularly with respect to increasing screening frequency for those at higher genetic risk.
There has also been attention to public perceptions of a 'right to be screened', which may militate against the acceptability of reducing breast screening frequency for those at the lowest risk.
Similar(51)
Main outcome measures: Levels of metabolic control, screening frequencies for late diabetic complications and cardiovascular risk factors.
The observed rise in testing is encouraging, yet rates still remain far below international guidelines for screening frequency.
Screening frequencies ranged from once to annually.
The Canadian Diabetes Association recommends a screening frequency of 3 years for subjects without known prediabetes or diabetes, and a higher frequency for persons with higher risk of diabetes.
During the 6‐year follow‐up period, the screening frequency was 2.3 for the endoscopic screening group and 2.2 for the radiographic screening group (P = 0.988).
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