Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(1)
We clearly stated reasons for exclusion of any study considered for the review.
Similar(59)
Two authors (KN, OE) independently assessed all studies considered for inclusion on the 31 items.
Studies considered for this work had been identified in a previous review of evidence.
For the identification of studies considered for inclusion in this review, we developed detailed search strategies for each database searched.
References of those studies considered for inclusion and the references of the review articles were hand searched for eligibility.
From 19 studies considered for inclusion, 6 were excluded as they did not meet the inclusion criteria.
The 'cited reference search' function of the Web of Knowledge (Thomson Reuters) was also used to find potential studies citing those studies considered for inclusion.
All studies considered for inclusion had to meet the following criteria: Studies had to include test-retest reliability of recall of HIV risk-related behaviors.
On the other hand, imposing stringent inclusion criteria in terms of study methodological quality would have reduced the potential availability of studies considered for analysis.
Detailed descriptions of all of the epidemiological studies considered for the review can be found in the technical literature review document prepared for the NTP workshop (NTP 2011b).
Two authors (JPCvdA and ME) screened the title and abstract of the studies considered for inclusion, and in case of doubt both screened the full-text article.
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