Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(22)
Of the remaining references, only 277 were considered relevant to the review topic by two independent reviewers, and assessed for methodological quality.
Seven out of eight reviews identified at least one controlled trial that was relevant for the review topic.
We explored how many EPOC reviews consider and identify nonrandomized studies, and whether the proportion of nonrandomized studies identified is linked to the review topic.
This indicates that the review topic is relatively under-researched.
The remaining fourteen studies had concerns of potential bias and applicability to the review topic.
A total of 2,330 records related to the review topic were accessed.
Similar(38)
Moreover no high-level studies were identified in relation to the review topics and no studies were reported.
Studies meeting the following criteria were included: (a) published studies, reviews or discussion papers addressing the review topics; (b) grey literature; (c) articles published in English language; (d) studies originating from Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Canada, USA, Europe, Japan, Brazil, South Pacific Nations, Thailand, Malaysia, and Myanmar.
Given the low number of available primary research articles on the proposed review topic, all study designs and quality of evidence were considered.
Lastly, a thorough assessment of quality would require clinical knowledge of the individual review topic areas.
The lists from the different review topics were found less suitable owing to the industry-specific nature of them e.g. aerospace, military and manufacturing.
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