Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(2)
Exact(60)
The 20 included trials were assessed according to trial quality using domain-based assessment of risk of bias, including potential confounding factors (as described above) in the design.
Only four trials were assessed to have adequate sequence generation, concealed allocation and blinded outcome assessment and therefore were judged at low risk of bias.
Control group participants in all trials were assessed at baseline and follow up; and at least one additional assessment was conducted in almost one third of studies (n = 26, 31%).
Randomized controlled trials were assessed for quality of evidence using the GRADE system.
All trials were assessed as having a high risk of bias.
Four non-randomized prospective trials were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
Primarily, a PubMed pilot search was performed, and then, two potentially eligible trials were assessed before writing the protocol.
Although these findings are interesting, the trials were assessed as having a high risk of bias due to poor reporting.
Disappointingly, despite a number of trials being recent, all trials were assessed as having a high risk of bias.
Dynamics of LV contractility and relaxation during weaning trials were assessed using the s′ and e′ waves, respectively [19 22].
A comparative evaluation was done between the two periods, and the trials were assessed for compliance with each of the 22 CONSORT items.
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