were reviewed for

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "were reviewed for" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when discussing the purpose or criteria for which something was reviewed, often in formal or academic contexts. Example: "The documents were reviewed for accuracy and completeness before submission."

✓ Grammatically correct

Science

News & Media

Academia

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

60 human-written examples

Products were reviewed for calorie and fat content.

The New York Times - Food

Records were reviewed for demographic, clinical, and radiographic information.

Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology

Some of the patents that were reviewed for the report have become business ventures.

The New York Times

Images were reviewed for general pelvic pathology.

Duke University

References were reviewed for additional studies.

Annals of Intensive Care

These responses were reviewed for potential diversity gaps.

Forbes

Charts were reviewed for visual acuity and visual field results.

Duke University

MRI reports were reviewed for meniscal and ligament abnormalities.

Duke University

Records were reviewed for patient demographics, outcomes, and complications.

Duke University

Additionally, hanging suicide records were reviewed for anchor points.

Injury Epidemiology

PoCUS scans were reviewed for errors by an experienced sonologist.

Critical Ultrasound Journal

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When using "were reviewed for", ensure the purpose of the review is clearly stated to provide context and clarity.

Common error

Avoid using "were reviewed for" without specifying what aspects were being reviewed. For instance, instead of "The documents were reviewed for issues", specify "The documents were reviewed for accuracy and completeness."

Linguistic Context

The phrase "were reviewed for" functions as a passive construction indicating that a subject has undergone a process of examination or assessment. According to Ludwig, this construction is widely used to specify the criteria or purpose behind a review, as shown in the examples provided.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

Science

60%

News & Media

20%

Academia

20%

Less common in

Formal & Business

0%

Encyclopedias

0%

Wiki

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, the phrase "were reviewed for" is a common and grammatically sound construction used to indicate the purpose of an examination or assessment. Ludwig confirms its frequent usage across various domains, including science, news, and academia. While its register is generally neutral to formal, clarity is paramount when using this phrase; always specify the criteria or aspects being reviewed. Alternatives such as "were examined to determine" or "were assessed in order to find" may be suitable depending on the nuance you wish to convey. By following these guidelines, you can effectively use "were reviewed for" in your writing.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

were examined to determine

Focuses on the purpose of the examination, specifying that something was checked with the intention of determining a specific aspect.

were assessed in order to find

Highlights the evaluation aspect and the goal of finding something specific during the assessment.

were checked to verify

Emphasizes the verification of a specific aspect or condition during the checking process.

underwent scrutiny regarding

Uses a more formal term 'scrutiny' to denote a detailed and critical examination concerning a particular aspect.

were evaluated with respect to

Formal alternative focusing on the evaluation process in relation to a specific criterion or factor.

were analyzed for

Highlights the analytical aspect of the review process, focusing on the identification of specific elements or characteristics.

were investigated concerning

Emphasizes the investigative nature of the review, focusing on gathering information about a specific issue.

were inspected with the aim of

Highlights the inspection aspect and clearly states the goal or purpose of the inspection.

were audited for

Specifies a formal audit process, typically used in financial or compliance contexts.

were screened to identify

Focuses on the screening process to identify specific items or characteristics within a larger set.

FAQs

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

You can use "were reviewed for" to indicate the criteria or purpose of an examination, as in, "The applications "were reviewed for" completeness and eligibility".

What are some alternatives to "were reviewed for"?

Alternatives include "were examined to determine", "were assessed in order to find", or "were checked to verify", depending on the specific context.

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

No, the correct form depends on the subject. Use "was reviewed for" for a singular subject (e.g., "The document was reviewed for errors") and "were reviewed for" for plural subjects (e.g., "The documents "were reviewed for" errors").

What's the difference between "were reviewed for" and "were evaluated for"?

While both phrases imply examination, "were reviewed for" often suggests a more general assessment, while "were evaluated for" indicates a more in-depth or critical appraisal. For example, "The proposals "were reviewed for" basic compliance", but "The proposals "were evaluated for" their feasibility and impact".