Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(15)
Studies were appraised for quality.
Studies were assessed for inclusion and appraised for quality by two independent reviewers.
Studies were appraised for quality using one of seven appropriate tools.
The peer-reviewed publications were appraised for quality, using a tool developed for the purpose of this study (see below).
Studies were appraised for quality and meta-analyses using random effects models for the influenza exposures of infection, and vaccination were conducted.
Cost-effectiveness studies will be appraised for quality based on a grading scheme that will encompass definition and presentation of the problem, measurement and data and analytic methodology.
Similar(45)
In terms of quality, almost all of the reviews with an LMIC focus (n = 696, 94%) have been appraised for methodological quality using AMSTAR and (on average) have a moderate quality score (range = 4.2 7.7 out of a possible score of 11) across topic domains (Table 3).
18 Although all studies in this review were appraised for methodological quality, no participants were excluded based on methodological quality as per recommendations of the Cochrane review.
Research articles meeting inclusion criteria were appraised for methodological quality.
Each study was critically appraised for methodological quality using recognised criteria [ 20].
All papers were critically appraised for methodological quality based on the criteria shown in Table 3.
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