Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(3)
Weak terms of reference are contributing to poor report quality.
Reviewers noted in particular that unclear objectives were a major contributor to poor report quality, as was having an unclear purpose, inadequate evaluation questions, or missing evaluation criteria.
Reviews had a poor report quality on methods and results, with an average of half of items being poorly reported on those sections.
Similar(57)
This suggests poor reporting quality of trials in blood conservation.
However, due to the poor reporting quality and selection, the validity of this report is limited.
These observations demonstrate the "poor reporting quality" problem, which is described below.
Another issue of concern is the general poor reporting quality of the studies.
Trials of poor reporting quality consistently overestimate the effect of treatment.
Overall, we classified 13% of the case series as being of poor reporting quality, 56% as intermediate quality, and 30% as high quality.
The existence of these problems in published articles is often regarded as evidence that poor research and poor reporting quality slips through the peer review process [ 6, 9].
The many missing, unclear or contradictory data indicate poor reporting quality, which seriously hamper attempts to make sense of and reproduce these efforts.
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