Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(1)
To systematically review methodological articles which focus on nonpublication of studies and to describe methods of detecting and/or quantifying and/or adjusting for dissemination in meta-analyses.
Similar(59)
Finally, to identify if certain methodological short-comings were more common than others, we calculated the proportion of articles which met or failed to meet each item separately.
First, there is the possible existence of biases; although we performed a methodological assessment to avoid selection biases, there was significant heterogeneity among the 12 articles which may be attributed to the nonuniform techniques of detecting endostatin.
We identified three additional network meta-analyses from methodological articles.
We excluded methodological articles, reviews, case series, and case reports, and non-English language articles.
Comments, editorials and letters accounted for 15%, methodological articles for 8%, and recommendations and narrative reviews for 26% of articles.
Methodological articles from other fields and using other DIF methods were also included if considered relevant.
Related article: Which countries deserve your money?
For this methodological article, the focus is on the first four specific objectives of the study.
I classified these by type (trial report or methodological article), year of publication, and journal.
Sixteen non-methodological articles were identified.
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