The phrase "and second evaluations" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when referring to multiple evaluations, indicating that there is a first evaluation followed by a second one.
Example: "The report includes the results of the initial assessments and second evaluations conducted over the past year."
Alternatives: "and subsequent evaluations" or "and additional evaluations".
The first and second evaluations were respectively performed after a median (interquartile range) of 1 1-1) and 3.75 (2-5) days from the onset of MV.
Test retest reliability was good with identical scores for the first and second evaluations (k = 1.00; standard error = 0.183).
A period of at least 2 weeks between the first and second evaluations was adopted for the intrarater reliability testing.
Arch forms were re-determined by the same investigator for 19 lower casts and perfect agreement was observed between the first and second evaluations (kappa score of 1).
For all drugs, the period of administration was also obtained from the outpatient clinic and hospital records at the time of the first and second evaluations.
Comparing the first and second evaluations, there was a significant difference (p = 0.006), which was not found when the second and third evaluations were compared.
The reliability of the FAST, SOFAS, and Sheehan was measured by comparing the first and second evaluation scores using a correlation coefficient (Table 2).
There were 15-20 minutes of interval between the first and second evaluation of one examiner.
The improvement in the evaluation scores between the first and second evaluation cycles was a temporary result, as evaluation scores during the third evaluation cycle dropped significantly, to reach close to the levels of the first evaluation cycle.
No significant difference was observed between the means of IFN-γ levels in the first and second evaluation.
Moreover, the timeframe between the first and second evaluation cycles was six months compared to one year between the second and the third.
