Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(10)
We selected 48 articles for analysis from 6,177 titles (see figure 1).
This systematic review left five articles for analysis [ 8, 21– 29, 29] (Appendix 1).
For each of the factors assessed, PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/) searches were performed to collect primary source articles for analysis.
Of these articles, 103 were retained for full text review; 88 studies were excluded for various reasons, leaving 10 articles for analysis [ 16- 25].
The objectivity of the EMA approach was demonstrated in one study [ 9], whereas another three [ 19, 22, 26] referred to other articles for analysis.
See illustration of categorization terminology in panels A, B, and C, Figure 2, for an illustration of how terminology was used to categorize and organize articles for analysis.
Similar(50)
Fifty-eight refereed articles remained for analysis.
After this screening 537 articles remained for analysis.
A MEDLINE web search for computer-archived bibliographic data yielded 14 articles suitable for analysis.
After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 49 articles remained for analysis.
Overall, a total of 103 unique articles remained for analysis having complete full-text evaluation.
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