Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(12)
Two independent reviewers initially screened articles for relevance.
Two members of the research team independently assessed the retained articles for relevance.
KB and KAH reviewed articles for relevance and performed critical appraisal.
A researcher scanned the abstracts of these articles for relevance, thus eliminating 314 articles.
We selected articles for relevance in three phases: title, abstract, and full text review.
Two investigators (Zheng Huaqing and Chen Changhong) independently assessed the articles for relevance.
Similar(48)
Potentially relevant citations were then procured as full articles, confirmed for relevance, and characterized using a pre-specified and pre-tested form consisting of 29 questions about the article type, study design, data collection methods, and details of the interventions, populations, and outcomes investigated.
Two authors reviewed these full text articles independently for relevance to the search aim (i.e. patients/service users with multiple sclerosis, experiences of health care services and qualitative research).
Any article included for relevance by either reviewer was considered potentially relevant and eligible for full text screening.
We reviewed titles, abstracts, and then full-text articles for their relevance to this review.
Reference lists however were searched manually for articles of relevance and were sourced from the publisher.
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