Ai Feedback
Exact(6)
The mean methodological score was 62.98 %.
The mean methodological score was 8 (range, 3 to 12).
The mean methodological score was 5.9 with a range of 2 8, indicating generally good quality studies.
Considering that the mean methodological score was 71% (SD 20.06%), the authors determined arbitrarily that the threshold for acceptable study quality was 70%.
The mean and median methodological score was 6.5, and only one trial did not satisfy half or more methodological criteria [ 52].
A low methodological score was not used as an exclusion criterion, but studies with such a low score were checked if they presented results that contradicted the results in other studies.
Similar(54)
The trial characteristics and the sum methodological scores are listed in Table 3. Trial characteristics by first author, method score, laser application technique, control group type, trial results.
Although the highest methodological scores were attained during the last decade, Fernández-de-las-Peñas compared the methodological quality of RCTs evaluating PT in tension-type headache, migraine and cervicogenic headache, published before and after 2000 and found no significant differences [ 30].
A total methodological quality score was calculated for all papers.
Consequently, the total possible methodological quality score was 10.
The median of the methodological quality score was 16 (range 10-20).
Related(20)
methodological purpose was
methodological diversity was
methodological rigor was
methodological group was
methodological assessment was
methodological analysis was
methodological individualism was
methodological heterogeneity was
methodological design was
methodological framework was
methodological quality was
methodological question was
methodological approach was
methodological training was
methodological study was
methodological issue was
technique score was
process score was
means score was
methodology score was
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