Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(5)
Exact(2)
Following an initial review for relevancy by AB and DM and removal of duplicate results we had a total of 57 citations.
Following an initial review for relevancy by title and abstract (KEK and NS) and removal of duplicate results, 78 studies were left for full-text review, of these, 23 studies finally met the inclusion criteria.
Similar(57)
Titles of references were reviewed for relevancy to ensure the article examined PDO.
All studies that passed this exclusion process were included in the third stage of review for relevance by scanning title, abstracts and the full text for relevancy.
A second review of abstracts for relevancy found that 51 articles did not meet the inclusion criteria.
Developed with Emory University to ensure they are based on sound science and behaviour change principles, the messages were reviewed for cultural relevancy and accuracy by Arogya World's Behavior Change Task Force and pre-tested with consumers.
The abstracts of 461 articles were reviewed for the relevancy of topic and analyzed in terms of application and validity.
Two researchers reviewed the full text articles for relevancy using the abstract inclusion criteria.
Then, the three authors screened the abstracts for relevancy, and independently reviewed the abstracts of all potentially relevant studies.
All articles were assessed for relevancy before inclusion into this review.
In an era when newspapers struggle for relevancy and attention, will the Wells review send the wrong message -- that in order for old-line media to break through in the new media paradigm, it needs to become sensational?
More suggestions(1)
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