Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(60)
Patients were randomised by block randomisation, stratified per centre and received either medication A (Calci Chew D3) or B (sachet with calcium and vitamin D3) and were asked to return 14 days later.
Patients were randomised by block randomisation to receive either docetaxel 75 mg m−2 on day 1 (D arm) or docetaxel 60 mg m−2 and irinotecan 200 mg m−2 both on day 1 followed by lenogastrim 150 μg m−2 day−1 on days 2 12 (DI arm).
Centres or sites were randomised by a central randomisation procedure to either a benchmarking group or a control group.
In Baghicha and Khagan villages, patients were randomised by household, whereas in Adizai randomisation was at the individual level.
The 150 people accepted into the program were randomised by NT via a true randomisation process (www.random.org) to either the CA (n = 51), TA (n = 50), or control groups (n = 49) (see Figure 1).
The enrolled practices were randomised by a computerised scheme (block randomisation) to an equal-sized intervention group and control group.
Practices were randomised by a statistician using block randomisation with random block sizes and stratification by practice list size, antibiotic prescribing rate for 2005, and country.
Patients returning completed questionnaires were randomised by the researcher using a telephone randomisation service with a random number allocation which ensured allocation concealment.
6 The 61 301 people were randomised by computer generated random numbers with different randomisation ratios in the different age and sex groups to secure a predefined number in the intervention group including an equal number of men and women at each age and an oversampling of middle aged people (40, 45, 50, and 55 years), as previously described.
Participants were randomised by random-number tables blocked in groups of four without stratification.
The patients were randomised by computer and allocated to two groups: intervention and control.
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