Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(6)
The MRCP UK) PACES and nPACES examinations are relatively unusual in having two separate examiners at each station.
Positives were standardised X-rays for each participant, reducing inter-participant variability regarding discrepancies in rotation or magnification on X-rays, and separate examiners performing radiographic measurements and averaging their individual findings for an overall result with increased accuracy.
The first thirty pages or articles, or all issues of newspaper websites from April 2009 were classified into three categories by two separate examiners: 1: In favour of influenza vaccination: the page explains clearly that vaccination is the better option for fighting Influenza epidemics or pandemics.
Future studies should use separate examiners for each section to eliminate any halo effect.
However in PACES and nPACES, each candidate is seen by ten separate examiners (working as five pairs).
The purposes of this study were: 1) to investigate the level of agreement of lumbar spine palpation between 3 separate examiners; 2) to determine the repeatability of measures of lumbar spinal range of motion by 3 examiners over 3 days; and 3) to determine the reliability of measures of upright lumbar position by 3 examiners.
Similar(54)
This was performed to separate examiner bias from the treatment results.
In each analysis the program calculated entirely separate estimates of examiner stringency, based on different candidates and different pairings of examiners.
Each examiner separately recorded the results in separate sheets without talking to other examiners about the test and its results.
The degree of agreement between the RSE and the examiners for separate variables related to the DC/TMD diagnoses Arthralgia is presented in Table 4.
All palatal impressions were inspected by two examiners separately and the palatal prints (rugograms) were recorded in separate envelopes and labeled (first record and second record).
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