Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(3)
The questions were used to evaluate the functionality of the databases, specifically by scope, completeness, and ease of use (EOU).
Scope, completeness, ease of use and composite scores were all compared between databases using Scheffe's post-hoc multiple comparison test and the Chi-square test.
In order to integrate all of the different evaluation criteria, a composite score was calculated from the scope, completeness and ease of use scores.
Similar(57)
Databases were ranked based on scope and completeness scores.
When comparing EOF and EOP databases, no differences in scope or completeness (p > 0.05) were seen.
Scheffe's multiple comparison procedure was used to determine statistically different scope and completeness scores.
Data were summarized using descriptive statistics to obtain rank order of databases based on scope and completeness scores.
A sensitivity analysis was performed around the choice of the weighting of the scope and completeness score (70% and 30%).
Forum attendees were eager to discuss their opinions regarding the scope and completeness of current health literacy definitions.
The composite score was subjected to sensitivity analysis to investigate the effect of the choice of percentages for scope and completeness.
MM, MDR, LC-AHFS, AHFS, and CP were shown to be superior in their scope and completeness of information, and MM, AHFS, and MDR provided no erroneous answers.
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