Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(5)
Exact(2)
For both observers, we found no differences between the 3 viewing techniques (P > 0.13).
> -wrap-foot> For both observers, we found no differences between the 3 viewing techniques (Table 2).
Similar(58)
Low intra-observer agreement (≤ 75% agreement for both observers) was found for item 7, item 16, item 18, item 19, item 22 and item 23).
This is unfortunately not supported by the low intra-observer reproducibility that we found.
In both experiments, we find that observers are sensitive to SF and orientation changes for upright and inverted faces and non-face objects.
We found that both observers yielded high scores for per polyp and per patient sensitivity (per patient sensitivity >90% for polyps ≥10 mm in both groups).
This may be a cause for the differences we found between observers.
In addition, both observers found a comparable mean number of active MTrPs.
For intra-observer concordance, both observers found no disagreement between the EORTC and PERCIST criteria (κ = 1).
We found good agreement between observers (kappa 0.76) and within observer (kappa 0.84).
We found very good inter-observer agreement, both for MRC-sum score and for handgrip strength in critically ill patients.
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