Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(1)
There are no examples of refutational syntheses of which we are aware, aside from Noblit and Hare's example [ 15], although in some meta-ethnographies [ 16] reviewersb have identified and excluded a paper(s) which could not be synthesised with the other papers or identified multiple lines of argument that were difficult to synthesise into a single line of argument [ 20].
Similar(59)
The decision about including or excluding a paper in our analysis was based on consensus discussion.
Where there was continued disagreement between reviewers about including or excluding a paper, a third reviewer made the final decision.
It was still possible at this step to exclude a paper if it was deemed irrelevant or methodologically flawed.
It is interesting to note that we excluded a number of papers from this synthesis because they did not report substantial qualitative data related to breastfeeding [ 52, 53].
As there are different types of spoiled ballots, a possible compromise would be to include those that were annulled simply because they had been put in the wrong box - for instance, in the parliamentary box rather the presidential box - while excluding a ballot paper on which a person had voted for two candidates, our reporter says.
Based on full text review of 192 papers, we excluded a further 169 and included 23 trials in the analysis.
A manual selection process was implemented in which the following categories of papers were excluded: a) review articles; b) commentaries and brief communications; and c) editorial notes including correspondence to editors.
The second observer excluded an additional 22 papers without substantive criticism.
After reviewing the full-text of these potentially eligible papers, we excluded an additional 298 articles, which left 214 eligible papers containing 244 unique referral metrics (Additional File 1).
"No individual or small group of scientists is in a position to exclude a peer-reviewed paper" from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra K. Pachauri, the chairman of that panel, wrote in a statement late last week.
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