Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(3)
2 = effective action taken to blind assessors; 1 = small or moderate chance of unblinding of assessors; 0 = not mentioned or not possible.
Were the outcome assessors blinded to the results of the index test (i.e., ultrasonography) and/or reference tests and/or patient outcome? 2 = effective action taken to blind assessors; 1 = small or moderate chance of unblinding of assessors; 0 = not mentioned or not possible.
The mean scores for assessors 1 and 2 were 57.19 (sd = 17.07) and 55.05 (sd = 13.77) points respectively.
Similar(57)
Test-retest reliability was evaluated in 380 residents by 48 assessors (nurses: 42; MD: 5, psychologist: 1) in 17 facilities.
Inter-rater reliability was evaluated in 404 residents by 76 assessors (nurses: 68; MD: 4; psychologists: 4) in 23 facilities.
None of the trials had blinded participants or therapists, and seven had blinded assessors [ 13, 31, 32, 34– 34].
Only four studies were determined to have low risk of detection bias related to blinding of outcome assessors [ 23, 28, 33, 34].
This finding is in accordance with other studies that find satisfactory reliability between 2 assessors [ 19, 20].
It also has shown considerable variation in accuracy between individual assessors [19].
Interrater reliability of proSPI-s was assessed in 12 patients, each assessed by 12 assessors (144 assessments).
Recent studies have demonstrated that the Klimisch method does not guarantee consistent evaluation results among different risk assessors [13, 14].
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