Ai Feedback
Exact(6)
Among these records, 129 were excluded as irrelevant to the scope of this review.
Results Our initial search yielded 1528 citations, of which 744 were excluded as irrelevant for the scope of this review or being duplicate.
Eight articles [ 35– 42] were excluded as irrelevant study.
590 abstracts were excluded as irrelevant, and 180 full trial reports were evaluated.
Systematic searching for clinical studies identified 391 publications, of which 371 were excluded as irrelevant following review of the abstracts.
1119 abstracts were excluded as irrelevant, 180 full trial reports were evaluated, and 18 trials met the inclusion criterion for randomisation.
Similar(54)
After duplicates were removed, the search identified 1,441 papers, of which 1,333 were excluded as clearly irrelevant and a further 63 after full-text assessment.
Of these, 2,875 were excluded as duplicates, irrelevant, paediatric research or having been published in a language other than English.
Eight items were excluded, as they were found irrelevant for fathers.
After a review of the abstracts 26 563 papers were excluded as they were clearly irrelevant or did not meet the inclusion criteria.
ProQuest Research Library was excluded as it returned too many irrelevant results and the most relevant subjects were covered by the searches performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Knowledge and Scopus.
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