Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(8)
38 of the 1758 screened papers met the inclusion criteria.
KG, BJ, DM, SM, FSM, FS all screened papers, data extracted and analysed data.
Two reviewers independently screened papers and assessed study quality; disagreements were resolved by discussion.
LB and JvU have screened papers and conducted the quality rating and meta-analysis.
From 78 screened papers, 16 studies (representing 15 cohorts) and approximately 920 medical ICU patients met inclusion criteria.
We searched six electronic databases, Google Scholar and Zetoc for papers using key terms including 'meta-ethnography.' Two authors independently screened papers by title and abstract with 100% agreement.
Similar(52)
Groups of 500 newly-emerged mosquitoes were transferred to cylindrical screened paper cartons (20 cm high and 18 cm diameter) and maintained on 5% sugar solution and water through the gauze on the top.
Titles and abstracts were used to screen papers for relevance to the systematic review.
In addition to screening papers for subsequent review, this group was responsible for handling the peer review of the remaining papers.
Due to the novel nature of our research question, we found that screening papers consistently was difficult, as treatment burden was not typically the focus of the paper, with relevant information being somewhat 'hidden' in the results.
Titles and abstracts of 17463 papers were screened; 1171 papers were then independently assessed by two researchers.
More suggestions(3)
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