was reviewed for

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "was reviewed for" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when indicating that something was examined or evaluated for a specific purpose or criteria. Example: "The manuscript was reviewed for its scientific accuracy and relevance to the field."

✓ Grammatically correct

Science

News & Media

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

60 human-written examples

The play was reviewed for several minutes to make sure the puck was not played with a high stick, and the goal stood.

The New York Times - Sports

Raplon was not among the drugs given a "fast track" status for approval, and was reviewed for more than a year before being allowed on the market.

The New York Times

This information was reviewed for accuracy and then summarized.

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

He was reviewed for the last time 18 months after the operation.

Strategies in Trauma and Limb Reconstruction

Since this document is not yet available, their 2005 document was reviewed for this study.

Evolution: Education and Outreach

The Triage 1 registry was reviewed for any missed documentation of intubation events.

International Journal of Emergency Medicine

The medical record was reviewed for results of these scans performed the following morning.

Critical Ultrasound Journal

was reviewed for patients undergoing secondary or more (ie, tertiary, quaternary, etc) rhytidectomy.

Aesthetic Surgery Journal

Relevant programmatic research from other vertical disease control programs was reviewed for generalizable implementation experiences.

Global Heart

In this study, the yield line method was reviewed for designing a donut-type two-way voided slab.

International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials

Each patient's chart was reviewed for patient gender, age, mechanism of injury, and AO/OTA injury classification.

Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When using "was reviewed for", ensure the context clearly specifies what criteria or aspects were considered during the review process. This adds clarity and precision to your writing.

Common error

Avoid using "was reviewed for" without specifying the purpose or criteria of the review. For example, instead of saying "The document was reviewed for errors", specify "The document was reviewed for grammatical errors and factual inaccuracies".

Linguistic Context

The phrase "was reviewed for" functions as a passive verb construction, indicating that the subject underwent an examination or evaluation for a specific purpose or set of criteria. As Ludwig AI indicates, this is a standard and correct usage.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

Science

55%

News & Media

25%

Formal & Business

10%

Less common in

Academia

5%

Encyclopedias

3%

Wiki

2%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, the phrase "was reviewed for" is a grammatically sound and frequently employed passive construction used to indicate that something has undergone assessment or evaluation. As Ludwig AI confirms, its usage is widespread and generally correct. The phrase finds prominence in scientific and news-related contexts. When using the phrase, specify the criteria or aspects considered during the review to enhance clarity and precision. Related alternatives include "was examined for", "was assessed for", and "was evaluated for", each offering nuanced variations in meaning.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

was examined for

Focuses on the act of careful inspection, often implying a detailed analysis.

was assessed for

Highlights the evaluation aspect, emphasizing the judgment made based on the review.

was evaluated for

Stresses a formal appraisal or determination of value or quality.

was checked for

Implies a verification process, ensuring that something meets specific criteria or standards.

was inspected for

Suggests a thorough and often official examination, usually to ensure compliance or safety.

was audited for

Indicates a systematic and independent examination of records or accounts.

was screened for

Emphasizes the selection or filtering process based on specific criteria.

was investigated for

Focuses on a formal inquiry or inquiry to discover and examine the facts of an incident, allegation, etc. so as to establish the truth.

was analyzed for

Highlights a detailed examination of the elements or structure of something.

was considered for

Implies a deliberate thought process involving evaluation.

FAQs

How can I use "was reviewed for" in a sentence?

The phrase "was reviewed for" indicates that something underwent examination to determine its suitability or compliance with certain standards. For example, "The application was reviewed for completeness and accuracy."

What is a good alternative to "was reviewed for"?

Depending on the context, you could use alternatives such as "was examined for", "was assessed for", or "was evaluated for".

What's the difference between "was reviewed for" and "was revised for"?

"Was reviewed for" implies an evaluation or inspection, while "was revised for" suggests that changes were made to improve something. A document might be reviewed for errors and then revised to correct those errors.

Is it correct to say "it was reviewed by" instead of "was reviewed for"?

While both are grammatically correct, they have different meanings. "Was reviewed by" indicates who performed the review, while "was reviewed for" specifies the criteria or purpose of the review. For example, "The proposal was reviewed by the committee" versus "The proposal was reviewed for its feasibility and impact".