Sentence examples for using two grading scales from inspiring English sources

The presence and intensity of fever was assessed using two grading scales: one recommended by the Chinese regulatory authorities and another routinely used by GSK Biologicals in studies of the human RV vaccine based on WHO guidelines.

Assessment of posterior tibial function was by manual testing using two different grading scales, as well as by examination for several signs associated with posterior tibial tendon dysfunction.

The readability of the original (US grade-level 9) and adapted English (US grade-level six) pamphlets were confirmed using two different scales: manually, by the Fry method [ 26] and electronically, by the Microsoft Word© 2007 Flesch-Kincaid scale [ 27].

The free-stall base was divided into seven sectors and the cleanliness of each sector was scored using a five grade scale reflecting the degree of contamination of each section.

The cleanliness of the udder, hind legs, and flanks of the cows was scored using a four grade scale where 1 was clean and 4 was very dirty [ 13].

For this we used a seven graded scale (1 = 'bad', 7 = 'good') with one question for each session, worded 'How did you experience session one?' There was also a possibility to make comments in relation to each question.

The quality of the communication was also graded on a Likert scale using two categories: "good" (1 2) and "poor" (3 5).

The scale used to evaluate POST was a four graded scale: 0 = No sore throat, 1 = Mild sore throat (less than with a cold), 2 = Moderate sore throat (as with a cold) and 3 = Severe sore throat (more severe than with a cold) [ 7].

Five arthritis severity factors were assessed using a grading scale from 0 (normal) to 5 (severe), based on a previously described scoring system [ 28].

Lipoatrophy was identified and graded by consensus between two HIV pediatricians using a standardized grading scale.

The photographs were evaluated and compared by two independent dermatologists using the quartile grading scale: 1 = minimal improvement or steady state (0 25%), 2 = moderate improvement (26 50%), 3 = marked improvement (51 75%), and 4 = excellent improvement (76 100%).