Sentence examples for reviewer differences from inspiring English sources

The inter-chart reviewer differences was less than 0.2%.

Taking the results from each reviewer separately, for the year 1995 1996 we found some evidence of higher STRICTA scoring by the unblinded reviewer (difference 13.4 %, 95 CI 3.0 to 23.8%).

Each IR was reviewed by two investigators (independent primary and secondary reviewers); differences in interpretation were reviewed by monthly phone calls to achieve consensus.

The median kappa statistic of agreement was only 0.09, suggesting substantial inter-reviewer differences in evidence ratings.

These were checked by a second reviewer and differences in opinion were resolved through discussion with a third reviewer.

With regard to point (1), we agree with the reviewer that differences in urgency could affect the buildup rate calculation.

This trend was also observed for ��FVC when using the 25  mL EOT criterion (p=0.03), but not for reviewer 3. Differences in rejection rates between reviewers were greater for FVC than FEV1 grades (3.7 5.9% and 1.9 2.1%, respectively) (table 3); thus, reflecting the more complex EOT judgments needed for FVC.

Study eligibility for inclusion in the meta-analysis was assessed and confirmed by two reviewers, and differences were resolved by discussion between reviewers.

We agree with the reviewer that difference in Yap expression level and activity may contribute to the different gene expression patterns described in Dong et al. (2007) and our work.

We agree with the reviewer that difference mapping is a powerful tool that can often eliminate some of the perils of tracking individual filaments, but the limitations of our host/phage system have complicated its use in this case.

The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed independently by two reviewers and differences resolved by consensus with separate criteria for qualitative (SC, SH) and quantitative (SH, DO) studies.