Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(2)
Exact(4)
Consistent with previous studies [18, 19, 25, 40], we found that myofascial pain diagnosis was the most common axis I finding.
The most common axis II diagnosis of DSM-IV was personality disorder (32.0%), followed by mental retardation (1.2%).
The most common axis I diagnosis of DSM-IV was major depressive disorder (23.1%), followed by adjustment disorder (19.5%), schizophrenia (15.4%), and substance use disorder (10.4%).
We examined the factor structure of the Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire (PDSQ), a 125-item self-report scale that screens for 15 of the most common Axis I psychiatric disorders for which patients seek treatment in outpatient settings.
Similar(56)
Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (12 subjects) or traits of it (7 subjects) were the most common axis-II disorders.
However, the birefringent tissue analysis of section 3.3 used histograms to (indirectly) measure the most common optic axis orientation, and was sensitive in its performance to (heavy) variations in the optic axis.
Although ⟨100⟩ and ⟨110⟩ are the most common zone axis orientations at which nanoparticles are studied in the TEM, nanoparticles may also be oriented away from low-order zone axes.
The most common comorbid Axis 1 conditions were mood disorders (50.9%), other anxiety disorders (42.7%) and substance abuse (22.1%).
To our knowledge, only three recent studies on adolescent SUD-inpatients presented comprehensive data on the most common DSM axis-I disorders using standardized clinical interviews [ 29- 31].
The Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire (PDSQ) is a brief, psychometrically strong, self-report scale designed to screen for the most common DSM-IV Axis I disorders encountered in outpatient mental health settings.
The Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire (PDSQ) is a self-report scale designed to screen for the most common DSM-IV axis I disorders encountered in outpatient mental health settings.
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