Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(60)
Otherwise, each paper was reviewed by one reviewer.
Each tool was reviewed by one reviewer.
Patient charts were reviewed by one reviewer, CK, for standardization.
After duplicates were removed, all records were reviewed by one reviewer (H.B.-F).
Abstracts of all the identified studies were reviewed by one reviewer (RM) for inclusion according to the pre-determined criteria.
However, for abstractions included in this study, 92% of study patients were reviewed by one reviewer with the aid of EMERSE.
Each article was carefully reviewed by one of two independent reviewers (NKK & JMR), and characterized based on anatomical location, density calibration type and manufacturer, scanner, and scanner settings.
The medical record was systematically reviewed by one of four independent reviewers (AR-L, NL, CG, MB).
Ten percent of the charts (110) were also reviewed by one of a number of secondary reviewers.
Applicants are required to have their doctor complete a medical report which is reviewed by one of the department's medical assessors.
The information was independently reviewed by one of us (JGS).
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