Your English writing platform
Free sign upSuggestions(5)
Similar(60)
The AAOS guideline poorly addressed stakeholder involvement, rigour of development, applicability, and editorial independence.
The Schnitzer/ACR guideline poorly addressed stakeholder involvement, rigour of development, clarity/presentation, and applicability.
The ICSI guideline effectively addressed scope/purpose and clarity/presentation, but poorly addressed stakeholder involvement, rigour of development, and applicability.
These domains are: scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigour of development, clarity and presentation, applicability, and editorial independence.
The iCAHE instrument included questions that addressed four of the AGREE II domains (Scope and Purpose, Stakeholder Involvement, Rigour of Development and Clarity of Presentation).
The instrument consists of 23 items organized into six domains: scope and purpose; stakeholder involvement; rigour of development; clarity of presentation; applicability; and editorial independence.
Each of these guidelines was evaluated across six domains including: scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, clarity and presentation, application, and editorial independence.
We complied with the following criteria: definition of the scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, clarity and presentation, application, and editorial independence.
12 13 AGREE II consists of 23 items grouped in six domains: scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigour of development, clarity and presentation, applicability and editorial independence.
The final version of the instrument contained 23 items grouped into six domains: scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigour of development, clarity and presentation, applicability, and editorial independence.
The AGREE instrument is composed of 23 items organized into six domains: scope/purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigour of development, clarity/presentation, applicability, and editorial independence.
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