Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(1)
Other forms of extrapulmonary TB suspects were excluded from the study.
Similar(59)
These 22 TB suspects are excluded from the analysis * the samples of 22 interviewed TB suspects were not evaluated for volume, color and viscosity.
These 22 TB suspects are excluded from the analysis Of the 272 TB suspects 37 (13.6%) provided three good quality sputum samples, 90 (33.1%) provided at least one good sample, and 203 (74.6%) provided 3 sputum samples.
These 22 TB suspects are excluded from the analysis Examination of sputum samples by microscopy is the main method used for diagnosis of tuberculosis in the public health care system of Indonesia.
These 22 TB suspects are excluded from the analysis # Knowledge was considered 'good' if the TB suspect provided the correct answer to ≥50% of the questions and 'poor' if <50% of the questions was answered correctly $ Motivation to provide sputum was considered 'good' if they had a score of more than 13 (range: 0 27) and 'poor' if the score was <13.
Articles that overlapped with previously published data, that were published by the same author, or overlap with patient cohorts from the same study group or combined study groups was suspected were excluded.
The revascularization origin, before being suspected, was excluded by echo-colo-doppler; the biopsy indicated an autoimmunogenic, parasitic or allergic myopathy.
Also patients with infections or suspected malignancies were excluded.
Twelve suspected cases were excluded from analysis because they did not meet the case definitions.
We identified 196 cases of DF; 279 suspected cases were excluded, and no cases of dengue hemorrhagic fever or dengue shock syndrome were found.
Women with two or more previous caesarean deliveries, a classical uterine incision, a history of multiple pregnancies, breech presentation, severe preeclampsia, transverse lie, placenta praevia or suspected macrosomia were excluded.
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