Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(6)
The intra-observer reproducibility was moderate for two physicians and was poor/average for the other two physicians.
First, the grouping was weak for eight scales (.01 < ICC < .10) and only moderate for two of the scales (ICC ≥ .16).16
The extent of disease was be determined by the number of zones containing lesions in the lung parenchyma (mild for one zone, moderate for two zones and severe for 3 zones).
Significant differences to the advantage of the intervention group were reported for four outcomes where we rated our confidence in the effect estimates as moderate for two outcomes [ 20, 21] and as low for two outcomes [ 19, 22].
The agreement for DR grading between endocrinologists and gold standard was fair for two of them (κ = 0.40 and 0.35), moderate for two (κ = 0.44 and 0.49), and substantial for one (κ = 0.62).
Evidence was assessed as strong if a paper was graded strong for population, ascertainment and analysis, strong– if graded as strong for two of the areas and moderate for one area, and moderate if graded as strong for one area and moderate for two areas, or as moderate for all three areas.
Similar(54)
Agreement was substantial for pain, moderate for four items, fair for three items and slight for two items.
Intensity of training was classified as low for one group, moderate for four groups, moderate to high for two groups, and high for seven groups.
For the eighteen groups (51.4%) in which data were provided, intensity of training was classified as low for three groups, moderate for eleven and high for four.
For inter-observer ratings, Kappa values were "almost perfect" for one item, "substantial" for one, "moderate" for five, "fair" for three, and "poor" for one (Table 2).
For intra-observer ratings, Kappa values were "almost perfect" for two of the assessments, "substantial" for one, "moderate" for six, "fair" for one, and "poor" for one.
More suggestions(4)
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