Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(3)
Furthermore, these two systematic reviews did not perform a meta-analysis on costs and effects.
The characteristics and results of these two systematic reviews were presented in Table 1.
Of the 17 studies identified in these two systematic reviews, only two studies, one from each systematic review, had a control group with a VAP-IP above 47.3%, the upper 95% limit of the prediction range derived from the benchmark groups here, whereas three had an intervention group VAP-IP below the lower 95% limit of the prediction range derived from the benchmark groups.
Similar(57)
These ten systematic reviews also included a mix of plausibility of different effects across the three questions.
Together, these three systematic reviews underscore the potential value of several BPCR components in reducing maternal and neonatal mortality.
However, according to the authors' conclusions, the clinical, methodological and statistical heterogeneity of the included studies made the results of these three systematic reviews less convincing.
We used the two systematic review articles to identify individual studies and main themes.
These included two systematic reviews: one well-conducted review for breast cancer that showed a clear association between shorter symptom durations and better outcomes (Richards et al, 1999); and one less rigorous review for lung cancer that showed a weakly positive association (Jensen et al, 2001).
These articles include two systematic literature reviews [P1,P22], and they were briefly presented in Section 1.2.3.
These categories rely on two systematic approaches: for mutations we selectively analyzed the list of SMGs identified by the algorithm MuSiC [ 28], for copy number we analyzed frequently amplified and deleted region of interest (ROI) as identified by GISTIC [ 29].
Many studies have addressed measurement properties of the NDI, and two systematic reviews of these studies were recently published.
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