Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(3)
The first 20 results were reviewed and each website assessed for suitability based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria (Table 2).
Results of the assessments for each of the 24 websites are displayed in Table 2, which additionally shows the ranking on the Google search results page for each website assessed, in each of the individual domain searches.
(For example, the website entitled: EGA - Basics of generic medicines was a hit on both of the IE searches. Additionally, the main EGA website was a hit on the google.co.uk search. As both relate to the same website, the results were combined into one and the EGA website assessed as a single site, rather than individual pages).
Similar(57)
Of the 10 websites assessed only Map of Medicine mentioned all of these assessment criteria.
Given the subjectivity of this type of readability assessment, it is reasonable that a moderate consistency was observed throughout the websites assessed.
Of the 24 websites assessed, none scored a perfect WQA score.
As each rating was independent, different sections of text were likely to be selected from each of the websites assessed.
The lack of advertisements also lends the website a more professional, and possibly trustworthy, appearance than some of the other websites assessed during this study.
Of 24 possible pieces of information provided in support of either ERCS or VBAC, the mean number provided by all 48 websites assessed was 10.4 (SD 4.6).
Also, 13 of 26 websites assessed were published in the past 3 years, eight websites contained articles published between 2005 and 2009, and five websites contained articles without a publication date.
The remaining two sites seen in the top six most highly returned websites scored WQA scores of 11 (MedicineNet page, website number 3 in Table 3) and 10 (WHO page, website number 6 in Table 3), indicating that the extent and quality of information in these websites is less than the other four top results, and considerably lower than some of the other websites assessed in this study.
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