Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(7)
The main characteristics of the studies are described in Table 1 ("Eligible outcome studies" section) and are summarized here.
Eligible outcome measures were self-administered, to identify those that can be completed without a researcher being present and therefore of broadest potential utility.
If an article presented separate meta-analyses on more than one eligible outcome or type of clinical setting, we assessed those separately.
A summary of the specific details of the uDCD process for the studies reporting outcomes is included in Table 2 ("Eligible Outcome Studies" section) and this process is further described here.
Of 115 trials reporting eligible outcome data, 72 (63%) were at low risk of bias for incomplete outcome data, 17 (15%) at high risk, and 26 (23%) did not describe adequate information to permit judgment.
Our choice of eligible outcome constructs reflected a focus on the assessment of the effects of eligible interventions in terms of the types and amounts of food, alcohol and tobacco people consume, coupled with recognition that amount selected (with or without purchasing) is an important intermediate endpoint in pathways to consumption.
Similar(53)
We compared the baseline features in those with EM in 2005 based on outcome status [CM vs. other eligible outcomes (control group)] in 2006 (Table 1).
GRADE approach was used for only one of the eligible outcomes which was patient satisfaction and the strength of evidence was observed to be "low" (Table 2).
Eligible outcomes were systolic and diastolic BP values (SBP and DBP, respectively).
In cases of multiple eligible outcomes, we chose the primary outcome as stated by the authors or selected the outcome with the largest number of studies.
Eligible outcomes were fatal coronary heart disease and non-fatal myocardial infarction (aetiologic and prognostic studies) and, for prognostic studies only, all cause mortality.
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