XYZ can occur after severe YZX

[John012]

Hey,
I hope i am at the right place here, i am currently writing a study, and have a question about 2 sentences..
Is this correct, or how would it be better?

"XYZ can occur after severe YZX. Its incidence had been reported in the literature ranging from 0.5 - 45%. This variety could be due to incorrect diagnosis regarding patients who developed a XXX. Furthermore, the varying incidences could be explained by inconclusive international diagnostic criteria."

and

"The results by international studies dealing with the predictive risk factors that could lead to a XXX remain inconclusive."

Thank you very much!
Flo

 

[Rover_KE]

Welcome to the forum, Flo.

It would be better if we knew what on earth you're writing about.

It's like you have encrypted vital details of your text.

 

[John012]

Sorry, but it has to be anonymized until published.
Just disease A , disease B, disease C
Thanks
More concrete questions:
Is the expression correct?
literature = all papers, journals, books together?
diagnostic or diagnosis?
Is there a better way to say: "The results by international studies" ?
Thanks!

 

[Tdol]

The results of

 

[John012]

Ok thx, and the other is correct? I mean, is that proper nice english?

 

[emsr2d2]

Sry, Sorry, but it has to be anonymized until published. I have to use just "disease A/B/C". , disease B, disease C
Thanks.

I have more concrete questions:
1. Is the expression correct? What expression?
Does "literature" mean all papers, journals, and books together?
Should I use "diagnostic" or "diagnosis"?

Is there a better way to say no colon here "The results by international studies"?
Thanks!

Okay, thx thanks, and is the other is correct? The other what? I mean, Is that it proper nice good English?

Please note my corrections and question above. Please remember to use full words and sentences on the forum. Neither "thx" nor "sry" are real words.

 

[jutfrank]

"XYZ can occur after severe YZX. Its incidence had been reported in the literature ranging from 0.5 - 45%. This variety could be due to incorrect diagnosis regarding patients who developed a XXX. Furthermore, the varying incidences could be explained by inconclusive international diagnostic criteria."

1) Why do you use use had instead of have?
2) The second sentence is not clear. Does This refer to XYZ? What does regarding mean? I think you mean of.
3) I don't follow what the last sentence means. Criteria cannot explain incidences.

 

[jutfrank]

literature = all papers, journals, books together?

Yes, everything that has been published.

diagnostic or diagnosis?

I don't know. What do you mean? Are you trying to translate from German here?

Is there a better way to say: "The results by international studies" ?

I'm pretty sure you mean 'results of international studies'.

 

[Tarheel]

We need enough details to be able to answer the questions adequately. We don't need to know names and stuff like that.

The word "diagnostic" is an adjective. The word "diagnosis" is a noun.

 

[John012]

1) Why do you use use had instead of have?
2) The second sentence is not clear. Does This refer to XYZ? What does regarding mean? I think you mean of.
3) I don't follow what the last sentence means. Criteria cannot explain incidences.

1 So it should be: "Its incidence has been..? I used had because i thought past tense would be right here?

2 This is referring to the incidence variety of 0.5 - 40 % (from XYZ).
This variety could be due to incorrect diagnosis regarding patients who developed a XXX
When i wrote regarding, i meant, that the patients got the incorrect diagnosis, instead of disease A, they got B as diagnosis. So meaning of would be correct like that?
This variety could be due to incorrect diagnosis meaning of patients who developed a XXX ??

3 In terms of "criteria": if you have different diagnostic criteria, your calculated incidence would as well be diffrent. For example: Diagnostic Criteria A: includes for example only men, and a other diagnostic criteria B includes women AND men, then your incidences will differ, because you had different criteria for a incidence in a disease in the first place / Bias Confounder.. is hard to explane here.. Or maybe i understood you wrong what you meant here.

 

[John012]

Please note my corrections and question above. Please remember to use full words and sentences on the forum. Neither "thx" nor "sry" are real words.

Okay thanks, i will keep that in mind, but my questions in the first place were not about the question itself : D

 

[John012]

I don't know. What do you mean? Are you trying to translate from German here?

The question is: Is in that sentences: Furthermore, the varying incidences could be explained by inconclusive international diagnostic criteria
Is diagnosis or diagnostic here the right expression?

 

[John012]

We need enough details to be able to answer the questions adequately. We don't need to know names and stuff like that.

The word "diagnostic" is an adjective. The word "diagnosis" is a noun.

So, what details you need? If the first sentences are hard to understand, i may rewrite it, because it is meant to be the introduction.

 

[jutfrank]

1 So it should be: "Its incidence has been..? I used had because i thought past tense would be right here?

You don't need a past tense. Present simple is best, I'd say, but present perfect also works.

2 This is referring to the incidence variety of 0.5 - 40 % (from XYZ).

Okay, I see.

When i wrote regarding, i meant, that the patients got the incorrect diagnosis, instead of disease A, they got B as diagnosis. So meaning of would be correct like that?

Okay. I suggest you use in to make the meaning clear. There's a diagnosis of a disease in a person.

3 In terms of "criteria": if you have different diagnostic criteria, your calculated incidence would as well be diffrent. For example: Diagnostic Criteria A: includes for example only men, and a other diagnostic criteria B includes women AND men, then your incidences will differ, because you had different criteria for a incidence in a disease in the first place / Bias Confounder.. is hard to explane here.. Or maybe i understood you wrong what you meant here.

Okay, I understand what you mean now. Well, I don't think inconclusive is the right word. You apparently mean 'different'. If the criteria are different, you're going to get a wider variety. I'd say it like this:

Furthermore, the wide variety of incidence could be explained by international differences in diagnostic criteria.

 

[John012]

You don't need a past tense. Present simple is best, I'd say, but present perfect also works.



Okay, I see.



Okay. I suggest you use in to make the meaning clear. There's a diagnosis of a disease in a person.



Okay, I understand what you mean now. Well, I don't think inconclusive is the right word. You apparently mean 'different'. If the criteria are different, you're going to get a wider variety. I'd say it like this:

Furthermore, the wide variety of incidence could be explained by international differences in diagnostic criteria.

Thank you very much!
As english is not my mother tongue, sometimes the right word is - so to say - not easy to find (for example inconclusive here).

 

[probus]

I don't much like your use of "variety' there. "Wide variance" or range or variability would be better.

 

[jutfrank]

I don't much like your use of "variety' there. "Wide variance" or range or variability would be better.

I'm fairly sure incidence variety is the right term but I'm not 100% certain.

 

[probus]

I've done some googling and now believe you are right @jutfrank. "Incidence variety" seems to be part of the jargon of statistics.

C.c. @John012

 

[John012]

Ok, thanks for the answers, i rewrote it.
What do you think?

DisA can occur after severe DisB. Its incidence has been reported in the literature ranging from 0.5 - 45%.[1][2][3][4][5] (OR: Its incidence can vary, international studies reported a range from 0.5 – 45 %.?)
This variety could be due to incorrect diagnosis in patients who developed a DisC. Furthermore, the incidence variety could be explained by international differences in diagnostic criteria.(wouldnt be: "by differences in international diagnostic criteria" more correct?)

And a new sentence i have in mind:

"A shunt dysfunction is a known problem, thus the indication must be "strong"

I know strong is the wrong word here, but which one can i use for that?

And:

Our hypothesis is: Bla bla bla

Is the ":" here correct? Or should i write: Our hypothesis is, blabla?

Thank you!!

 

[probus]

In my view "international differences" is more natural because it's the differences that are international, not the criteria.

It's hard to say about "strong" because we lack techical knowledge of the subject. Would "strongly indicated" work for you?

Either a colon or a comma could be used. The journal in which you plan to publish may have a stylistic preference on that point.