Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(2)
(Developmental process) we added question No. 2.1 about naming the developer and deleted the question about reporting steps to find, appraise, summarize evidence, because further educational intervention would have been necessary to develop this abilities in lay persons [ 19].
We added question No. 1.9 about references to relevant guideline recommendations to relate the decision aid to the health care system of the users, because patients might be afraid of discussing evidence with their health care providers and should be informed about medical guidelines as well.
Similar(58)
To assess the feasibility of the questionnaire, we added questions to record starting and finishing times, and the participants were asked to rate the length and comprehensibility of the questionnaire as well as their ability to answer the questions easily, using 4-point smiley-face scales.
We added questions to cover particular factors regarding living conditions and poverty indicators.
Next, we added questions from an unpublished and unvalidated survey which had been locally drafted during study inception.
For supervisors, we added questions on barriers and enablers of supervision and on management and training issues.
We added questions on absenteeism from school or work, health care consultants, and out-of-pocket costs.
The written survey contained core ISAAC questions on asthma, allergic rhinitis, and eczema, and we added questions on CPC and tobacco smoke exposure.
Finally, we added questions about age (seven categories), level of education (eight categories) and gender in the questionnaire for patients who enrolled themselves.
In addition, we added questions regarding perceived barriers to reducing antibiotic prescribing, including diagnostic uncertainty and patient expectations (see Additional file 1 for survey instrument).
We added questions on ETS exposure and CPC in order to determine the prevalence of CPC and examine the relationships between CPC, asthma, and ETS exposure.
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