Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSimilar(60)
We were unable to identify specific information in the articles we reviewed that lead us to a "Best Method or Best Use" for technology-assisted education.
The articles we reviewed studied outcomes and impact for different reasons.
Unfortunately, in the vast majority of the articles we reviewed, no explanations were offered for the choice of exclusion criteria.
It wasused by Steyerberg et al. [ 18] and Yap et al. [ 35] in the articles we reviewed up to 2009.
There is a thin line between involvement and collaboration and thus in many of the articles we reviewed, the two were used interchangeably.
The prevalence of a prior fracture in the articles we reviewed ranged from 18.4 to 40% of patients [ 15, 16, 18].
Many of the articles we reviewed focused on particular communities usually defined by geographic areas, with analysis extended from one to several years.
Interestingly, most of the articles we reviewed included several strategies such as community meetings, focus groups and CABs within one project.
In this article we reviewed the current state-of-the-art on web content popularity prediction methods.
In this article, we reviewed the status of the light extraction techniques of organic light-emitting diode (OLED).
In this article, we reviewed the two types of lists and the types of colleges.
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