Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(7)
Two smaller studies reported positive effects of α1-AR blockers on echocardiographic parameters of diastolic dysfunction.
According to Egger's test, there is a significant "small study effect", smaller studies reported more pronounced superiority of DES compared to larger studies (bias estimate Egger's test: −1.71, standard error 0.77, slope 0.24, p = 0.034, Figure S3).
Notably, the widely quoted multicenter Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study reported a 5-year local treatment failure rate of 10.3%, 4 while several smaller studies reported lower failure rates.
Three smaller studies reported no association between PFOA and birth weight (Inoue et al. 2004; Monroy et al. 2008; So et al. 2006).
27 The funnel plot was asymmetrical (fig 8); less precise (smaller) studies reported higher odds ratios than did larger studies (Harbord's test, P=0.002).
The funnel plot showed that the standard errors in four of the studies exceeded the 95% confidence limits; furthermore, the asymmetry test of the funnel plot by Egger's regression method showed that the smaller studies reported more positive results, raising the suspicion of bias among the studies.
Similar(53)
These findings are consistent with the findings in two earlier and smaller studies reporting on pain after healing [ 20, 21].
This contrasts with previous smaller studies reporting a slowing of the increase in incidence after age 90.
Group size was the only factor that was consistently influential between sequela estimates, with smaller studies reporting a higher proportion of sequela.
There appears to be publication bias towards smaller studies reporting positive results (that is, mortality benefit associated with early initiation of RRT).
This is in accordance with previous reports in smaller studies reporting late referral in 22 40% of incident RRT patients when defined as a nephrology course starting ≤ 4 months before RRT start [ 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12].
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