Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(2)
Exact(2)
Notably, despite their limitations, both methods were suitable and reliable for inclusion constant measurement, if the equilibrium time of the system is well established.
In our study almost all women reported that both methods were suitable for them and of those who preferred one method a majority preferred the qualitative method i.e. the mindfetalness method in which the number of movements is not determined.
Similar(58)
Both methods are suitable for the application of the two-step approach, and they have been compared in terms of accuracy of the final 3D operator.
Both methods are suitable for industrial scale production.
The levels of C3 in both control groups were significantly higher (P<0.01) than in the C3 deficient patient sample, indicating that both methods are suitable for identification of C3 deficiency using DBSS eluates.
Both methods are suitable for routine.
Our study shows that both Methods are suitable for evaluating the microbial tightness of CSTDs.
We have shown that both methods are suitable for this purpose.
For both the FTC and the SS methods, a constant algal concentration at mussel inflow can be maintained during the experiment, for the former advantageously specified by the inlet condition but for the latter to be determined a posteriori from the data and eqn 2. Both methods are suitable for reliable measurements of the filtration rates in mussels if all prerequisites are fulfilled.
Lascelles et al. [ 2] showed that absolute GRF values determined with the use of a pressure-sensitive walkway were lower than those reported in studies using a force plate, but with a similar trend, suggesting that both methods are suitable for use in comparative studies.
Both in vivo and in situ methods were suitable to assess CP degradation in the rumen and both methods also indicated that chemical treatment had no effect on ruminal CF degradation, but the estimated extent of CF disappearance differed between the in vivo and in situ estimates.
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