The phrase "articles were evaluated for" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when discussing the criteria or aspects for which articles are assessed or analyzed in a research or review context.
Example: "In this study, the articles were evaluated for their methodological rigor and relevance to the research question."
Alternatives: "articles were assessed for" or "articles were analyzed for".
Selection of studies All retrieved articles were evaluated for eligibility based on the title and abstract.
The full texts of the select articles were evaluated for inclusion and the reference lists of included studies were hand searched for relevant articles.
Data analysis: articles were evaluated for their analytical treatment of the study population (i.e., use of sex/gender stratification; use of sex/gender as a covariate).
All titles and abstracts of identified articles were screened independently by two researchers for the inclusion and exclusion criteria described in the following section, and the full-text articles were evaluated for potential inclusion by Leslie Vaughan.
Based on these inclusion/exclusion criteria, the title and abstract of all the retrieved articles were evaluated for relevance, and then the full texts of the selected articles were reviewed, followed by a decision on their eligibility for inclusion in this systematic review.
The full text of the remaining 315 articles was evaluated for eligibility.
Each article was evaluated for quality based on eight criteria: 1) study purpose; 2) literature; 3) study design; 4) sampling; 5) data collection; 6) analyses; 7) rigour; and 8) conclusions / implications.
These articles were evaluated independently for outcomes and quality of evidence using the Structured Effectiveness Quality Evaluation Scale and Sackett's Levels of Evidence.
Titles, abstracts and full-text articles were evaluated and reviewed for inclusion by at least two of the authors.
Finally, retrieved articles were evaluated and clinical recommendations for the treatment of neuropathic pain were designed by the pain specialists.
Fifty one full text articles were evaluated, with 28 articles excluded for the following reasons: hospital- based studies (n-18), not focused on studied outcomes (n-7), duplicate publications (n-2).
