Exact(9)
Discussion engagement: students' participation in the class discussions of the papers was evaluated in every session.
Moreover, the full text of 77 papers was evaluated.
The methodological quality of papers was evaluated using a modification of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.
The quality of research papers was evaluated according to adequate description of the theoretical framework, background, and methodology [ 11].
Concordance among the eight verdicts per domain, across all six papers, was evaluated using the kappa statistic.
The eligibility of all papers was evaluated independently by three observers, and disagreements were resolved by discussion.
Similar(51)
To assess methodological rigour, the papers were evaluated against a checklist of key issues exploring validity.
In total, 140 papers were evaluated from which 24 publications [ 15- 36] were included (see Figure 1 for selection process).
In this system, papers were evaluated on the basis of 'population', 'ascertainment' and 'analysis' (see online supplementary appendix 3).
Not all papers evaluated all patients' genotypes, therefore, for genotype 2/3, four papers were included in the meta-analysis and for genotype 1, six papers were evaluated.
All nine papers were evaluated in detail to describe strong and weak points in the methodology, and the outcomes from all studies were presented.
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