Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(24)
The study is a randomised controlled trial comparing the home based walking intervention group with care as usual control group.
The primary outcome, i.e., the composite of all-cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction or nonfatal stroke, was highest in the not controlled group (19.8%), and significantly (P < 0.0001) lower in the usual control group (12.6%) and the tight control group (12.7%; Table 1).
It lacks the usual control group, because "you can't go to a school and say we picked you because you're a failure" at providing research opportunities for undergraduates.
The study used an intent-to-treat design, with 25 foster parents of 31 children (ages 4 12) in specialized foster care assigned to either an intervention or treatment as usual control group.
No between group differences for the intervention and 'care as usual' control group were observed.
More research using a TAU (treatment as usual) control group or different treatment groups is needed.
Similar(36)
Outcome measures for the intervention and treatment as usual (control) groups will be compared using linear mixed-effects models.
After Cox model adjustment for baseline characteristics, we also saw an increased risk for death in tight control groups compared with usual control groups.
Uncontrolled systolic and diastolic blood pressure levels were not significantly associated with the outcome compared with the usual control groups in multivariate Cox models (fig 1).
We used Cox proportional hazard regression models to estimate hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals of all cause mortality for groups of systolic and diastolic blood pressure, using the usual control groups as references.
After inclusion, the subjects were randomised to one of the four conditions: behaviour-oriented physiotherapy (PT), cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), behavioural medicine rehabilitation consisting of PT+CBT (BM) and a 'treatment-as-usual' control group (CG).
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