ライフサイエンスコーパス: reviewer

1 rmed by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer.

2 wers, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer.

3 ted by 1 reviewer were confirmed by a second reviewer.

4 , and disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer.

5 were resolved after discussion with a third reviewer.

6 acted by one reviewer and checked by another reviewer.

7 of data was undertaken independently by two reviewers.

8 xtraction was performed independently by two reviewers.

9 es were independently reviewed by at least 2 reviewers.

10 k, and ESMO-MCBS by at least two independent reviewers.

11 praisal was undertaken systematically by two reviewers.

12 ntially eligible articles were screened by 2 reviewers.

13 rded, transcribed verbatim, and coded by two reviewers.

14 extraction were done by pairs of independent reviewers.

15 ta extracted from medical records by blinded reviewers.

16 n: Articles were independently assessed by 2 reviewers.

17 eristics of data systems was abstracted by 2 reviewers.

18 d Scopus) were searched independently by two reviewers.

19 arts of HSCT patients by blinded independent reviewers.

20 Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers.

21 extraction was done by pairs of independent reviewers.

22 y, and data were assessed independently by 2 reviewers.

23 Data were abstracted by 2 reviewers.

24 Data were extracted and checked by two reviewers.

25 ws and to a lower level of agreement between reviewers.

26 tracted and assessed for risk of bias by two reviewers.

27 plant and/or periodontics by two independent reviewers.

28 d abstracts were assessed independently by 2 reviewers.

29 Studies were screened by three reviewers.

30 d different appraisals from editors and peer reviewers.

31 re independently selected for inclusion by 2 reviewers.

32 of data was undertaken independently by two reviewers.

33 abstracts were screened independently by two reviewers.

34 ears old) were identified by two independent reviewers.

35 and insulin were abstracted by 2 independent reviewers.

36 information from the journals to authors and reviewers.

37 references were screened by two independent reviewers.

38 iew stages were conducted independently by 2 reviewers.

39 paring and contrasting performed by multiple reviewers.

40 een the structures was measured by 2 blinded reviewers.

41 y, and data were assessed independently by 2 reviewers.

42 underwent full-text review by 2 independent reviewers.

43 modified based on feedback from expert peer reviewers.

44 R tool were carried out independently by two reviewers.

45 s how they can inform (and misinform) expert reviewers.

46 using standardized terminology by certified reviewers.

47 Criteria were applied by two independent reviewers.

48 nd 2D SE-EPI MR elastography across multiple reviewers.

49 ta extraction was performed by 2 independent reviewers.

50 in kilopascals) was measured by five blinded reviewers.

51 critical appraisal and data abstraction by 2 reviewers.

52 raction of data, and quality assessment by 2 reviewers.

53 Study quality was assessed by 2 independent reviewers.

54 outcomes were extracted independently by two reviewers.

55 in only malignant lesions by both reviewers; reviewer 1 saw hypovascularity in 24 of 94 lesions (P =

56 ularity in 24 of 94 lesions (P = .0001), and reviewer 2 saw hypovascularity in 21 of 94 lesions (P =

57 ed by 1 investigator was checked by a second reviewer; 2 reviewers independently assessed study quali

58 ed by a research librarian and assembled for reviewers; 2 reviewers independently determined whether

59 abstracts were identified and screened by 2 reviewers, 77 articles were reviewed in full text, and 2

60 From the 174 selected reviewers, 94 sent comments on the second draft, which s

61 Data Extraction: 2 reviewers abstracted data and independently rated study

62 Data Extraction: 2 reviewers abstracted study information, evaluated study

63 Two reviewers abstracted trial characteristics and outcome d

64 Despite public and reviewer access to protocols, selective outcome reportin

65 Image analysis was performed by 2 reviewers according to the Lugano classification for sta

66 Reviewer accuracy and time to review for each method wer

67 asured using validated scales, and physician reviewers adjudicated incident HF events.

68 One central reviewer also used the Society for Industrial and Organi

69 action: Data extraction was performed by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer.

70 sed study quality; data were abstracted by 1 reviewer and checked by a second.

71 Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by another reviewer.

72 r fair-quality trials were abstracted by one reviewer and checked by another.

73 Extraction: Extraction performed by a single reviewer and confirmed by a second reviewer; dual-review

74 Data Extraction: Extraction by 1 reviewer and confirmed by a second; dual-reviewer assess

75 Data were independently abstracted by one reviewer and confirmed by another.

76 thesis: The data were extracted by 1 primary reviewer and then independently reviewed by 2 secondary

77 Data were extracted by 1 reviewer and verified by a second.

78 of 0.91 (95%CI: 0.82, 1.00) between the two reviewers and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.72, 0.99) between the thre

79 led databases that have been selected by NAR reviewers and editors as 'breakthrough' contributions, d

80 Articles were reviewed by 2 independent reviewers and independently abstracted for treatment typ

81 n total, 18,468 studies were screened by two reviewers and one arbiter.

82 use by decision makers, risk assessors, peer reviewers and other interested stakeholders to determine

83 lations were independently assessed by three reviewers and potential barriers were identified within

84 Agreement between the central reviewers and the institutional audiologist was almost p

85 ere calculated in a pairwise fashion for all reviewers and the model.

86 CT scans, there was disagreement among all 9 reviewers and the radiology report on the presence/absen

87 nia on CT scans was compared among 9 blinded reviewers and the radiology report.

88 meter was then evaluated by Joint Task Force reviewers and then by reviewers assigned by the parent o

89 tions were then reviewed by invited external reviewers and through a public posting process.

90 ublications were examined by two independent reviewers and were included if they presented data at th

91 Studies were screened by 2 independent reviewers and were included if they reported primary res

92 To aid the editorial process and help peer reviewers and, ultimately, readers and systematic review

93 re positions as an editor, associate editor, reviewer, and/or editorial board member of various radio

94 rence lists were independently screened by 2 reviewers, and authors were contacted to identify releva

95 users of COS (clinical trialists, systematic reviewers, and clinical guideline developers), and patie

96 users of COS (clinical trialists, systematic reviewers, and clinical guideline developers), and patie

97 Support from researchers, reviewers, and editors is key to success.

98 Eligible RCTs were selected by 2 independent reviewers, and guidelines were selected by 1 person.

99 theoretical work is challenging for authors, reviewers, and readers.

100 Multiple reviewers appraised studies for inclusion or exclusion u

101 Three reviewers appraised the quality of the selected studies.

102 rly publishing and it is essential that peer reviewers are appointed on the basis of their expertise

103 While reviewers are expected to follow reporting guidelines, i

104 Two reviewers assessed eligibility and risk of bias, perform

105 Two reviewers assessed quality and strength of evidence (SOE

106 Two reviewers assessed risk of bias and strength of evidence

107 A further two reviewers assessed the methodological quality against ag

108 A further two reviewers assessed the methodological quality against ag

109 Two reviewers assessed the relevance of papers based on the

110 y 1 reviewer and confirmed by a second; dual-reviewer assessment of risk of bias; consensus determina

111 wer and confirmed by a second reviewer; dual-reviewer assessment of risk of bias; consensus determina

112 ed by Joint Task Force reviewers and then by reviewers assigned by the parent organizations, as well

113 nt and then at quarterly intervals, with the reviewer blinded to treatment allocation.

114 image analysis was performed by 2 specialist reviewers blinded to patient treatment.

115 If either reviewer chose inclusion, the abstract was accepted for

116 Reviewers classified each subject as follows: epilepsy,

117 Two physician reviewers classified incidents as medical errors, other

118 nd alterations were completed in response to reviewer comments in January 2016.

119 The reviewers' comments contributed to creating the final ve

120 Two blinded reviewers compared parent-reported and medical record-ab

121 Two independent reviewers conducted a systematic search of the 4 databas

122 A senior reviewer confirmed data and ratings.

123 Five reviewers (consensus group) met to discuss all CT scans

124 eLife editors and reviewers consult with one another before sending out a

125 Using the handheld stereo viewer, the reviewers correctly identified progression or nonprogres

126 to review the challenges and practical steps reviewer could take to incorporate a complexity perspect

127 The AGREE II assessment helps reviewers determine whether published guidelines are rob

128 The reviewers directly visualized the anastomosis more often

129 ant anatomy improved with 3D ultrasound by 2 reviewers [DM = 7.1% and 8.9% (95% CI = 1%-13% and 4%-14

130 a single reviewer and confirmed by a second reviewer; dual-reviewer assessment of risk of bias; cons

131 study characteristics confirmed by a second reviewer; dual-reviewer risk-of-bias assessment; consens

132 dology with the goal of stimulating authors, reviewers, editors and funders to put experimental guide

133 Continuous analysis allows reviewers, editors or readers to verify reproducibility

134 ge evaluation while simultaneously promoting reviewer efficiency.

135 ber 21, 2016, through December 14, 2016, one reviewer evaluated visual acuity reporting among all art

136 Two independent reviewers evaluated each abstract using a list of 21 ite

137 Two reviewers evaluated each term.

138 Two reviewers evaluated studies for eligibility and extracte

139 One reviewer extracted data that were checked by 3 others.

140 Paired reviewers extracted data about study characteristics and

141 Two reviewers extracted data and assessed quality independen

142 Data Extraction: Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed study quality usin

143 Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed the quality of stu

144 Two reviewers extracted study data and independently assesse

145 Two reviewers extracted summary data by consensus.

146 Independent reviewers extracted the data and assessed the quality of

147 Data Extraction: Single-reviewer extraction of study characteristics confirmed b

148 in human studies that many investigators and reviewers fail to take into account.

149 d point status, and significant results; FDA reviewer feedback on PRO end points; and study design of

150 IRB) members, granting agencies, and journal reviewers filter scientific products based on political

151 d then independently reviewed by 2 secondary reviewers following Preferred Reporting Items for System

152 Mary University of London, UK, and a valued reviewer for Genome Biology.

153 xcellent for measured stiffness between five reviewers for both 2D GRE (ICC, 0.97; 95% confidence int

154 e 1) to find out if and how authors and peer reviewers for dental journals are encouraged to use repo

155 All studies were assessed by 2 reviewers for methodological quality using the Mixed Met

156 Citations were screened independently by two reviewers for studies that investigated psychosocial out

157 position on the steering committee, or as a reviewer, for this guideline.

158 out the identities of 9000 editors and 43000 reviewers from the Frontiers series of journals, we show

159 is can be used by investigators and authors, reviewers, funding agencies, and editors.

160 -review process because the identity of peer reviewers generally remains confidential.

161 Editors and peer reviewers generally--but not always-made good decisions

162 ld provide adequate experimental detail, and Reviewers have a responsibility to carefully examine pap

163 In this reply to reviewers, I argue that, although reforming the taxonomy

164 Two reviewers identified nodules and obtained measurements o

165 Two independent reviewers identified studies, extracted data, and assess

166 racts should help authors, editors, and peer reviewers improve the transparency of NPT trial reports.

167 submission, to be more complete and aid our reviewers in better understanding, and thus critiquing,

168 re interpreted with visual assessment by two reviewers in consensus.

169 l searches were conducted by two independent reviewers in several databases for articles written in E

170 e searches were performed by two independent reviewers in several databases, including Medline, EMBAS

171 Three independent reviewers in several databases, including MEDLINE, EMBAS

172 ndpoint of CLAD (determined by 2 independent reviewers) in 250 LTRs in a single university transplant

173 Two reviewers independently abstracted study data and assess

174 DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently abstracted trial-level data incl

175 Two reviewers independently appraised each selected article

176 Two reviewers independently appraised the articles and extra

177 Two reviewers independently assessed articles for eligibilit

178 Four reviewers independently assessed data quality and method

179 Three reviewers independently assessed eligibility for inclusi

180 Data Extraction: Three reviewers independently assessed guideline quality using

181 Two reviewers independently assessed papers for inclusion, e

182 In addition, 2 reviewers independently assessed quality with Quality As

183 Data Extraction: 2 reviewers independently assessed rigor of guideline deve

184 Two reviewers independently assessed risk of bias.

185 stigator was checked by a second reviewer; 2 reviewers independently assessed study quality, and the

186 Data Extraction: Three reviewers independently assessed study types and charact

187 Two reviewers independently assessed titles and abstracts to

188 Two reviewers independently collected and summarized the dat

189 Two reviewers independently determined the percentage RC and

190 rch librarian and assembled for reviewers; 2 reviewers independently determined whether or not to inc

191 Two reviewers independently evaluated article eligibility an

192 Two reviewers independently examined titles and abstracts to

193 Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk

194 DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted data and evaluated met

195 Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently extracted data and ranked study

196 Two reviewers independently extracted data for outcomes of i

197 Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently extracted data on study characte

198 Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently extracted data, assessed risk of

199 Two reviewers independently extracted data.

200 Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently extracted data.

201 Two reviewers independently extracted data.

202 Two reviewers independently extracted individual study data,

203 Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics

204 Data Extraction: 2 reviewers independently extracted study data and assesse

205 Two reviewers independently extracted study data and assesse

206 Two reviewers independently extracted study data and classif

207 Two reviewers independently extracted the data from selected

208 Two reviewers independently identified randomized controlled

209 After a comprehensive search for trials, two reviewers independently identified randomized trials com

210 Two reviewers independently identified studies that included

211 Two reviewers independently made selected studies and extrac

212 Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently rated risk of bias and strength

213 Two masked reviewers independently reported the scans.

214 Two reviewers independently reviewed citations using predete

215 Two reviewers independently reviewed citations.

216 Two reviewers independently reviewed the articles, leaving 8

217 Two reviewers independently reviewed the titles, abstracts,

218 Two reviewers independently screened 1811 identified article

219 Paired reviewers independently screened abstracts and full-text

220 Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and studies.

221 Two reviewers independently screened articles for congruence

222 Two reviewers independently screened studies based on predet

223 Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion,

224 Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data

225 Pairs of reviewers independently screened the studies, abstracted

226 Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, e

227 Three reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, r

228 Two reviewers independently screened titles of 7371 unique p

229 Two reviewers independently selected relevant incident repor

230 Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted d

231 Two reviewers independently selected studies evaluating the

232 Two reviewers independently selected the studies, assessed t

233 Data were abstracted by two reviewers independently using a standardized abstraction

234 T/CT scans were qualitatively evaluated by 2 reviewers independently, and the results were compared w

235 extraction and risk-of-bias assessment by 2 reviewers independently; overall strength of evidence (S

236 veloped a tool called InterVar to help human reviewers interpret the clinical significance of variant

237 ach, frequently used by other attractiveness reviewers, is preferable for drawing unbiased conclusion

238 gical events adjudicated centrally by masked reviewers, no strokes were identified, but three transie

239 Reviewers of angiography were blinded to results of phys

240 wers and, ultimately, readers and systematic reviewers of prediction model studies, it is recommended

241 nstructions to authors" and "instructions to reviewers" of these journals were identified and retriev

242 Data were extracted independently by 2 reviewers on a predesigned, standardized form.

243 Data were extracted independently by 2 reviewers on a predesigned, standardized form.

244 mera images were assessed by the independent reviewer; one showed altered biodistribution (0.04%) and

245 Eighteen multidisciplinary reviewers performed a systematic review on 10 predefined

246 Two reviewers performed study selection, data abstraction, a

247 Two independent reviewers performed study selection, data extraction, an

248 Two independent reviewers performed the study selection and quality asse

249 Two reviewers rated study quality using USPSTF criteria.

250 Two independent reviewers read each selected article and extracted relev

251 les, manuscripts with lower scores from peer reviewers received relatively fewer citations when they

252 Trained reviewers recorded abnormalities, which were subsequentl

253 e was seen in only malignant lesions by both reviewers; reviewer 1 saw hypovascularity in 24 of 94 le

254 ristics confirmed by a second reviewer; dual-reviewer risk-of-bias assessment; consensus determinatio

255 not based on a written plan, and following a reviewer's comments, some material was moved to suppleme

256 Two independent reviewers screened 954 full texts from 29 335 abstracts

257 Study Selection: Two independent reviewers screened abstracts and titles against inclusio

258 Two independent reviewers screened abstracts, titles, and full texts, an

259 Two reviewers screened citations independently.

260 Two independent reviewers screened the returned citations to identify re

261 Study Selection: 2 reviewers screened titles and abstracts to identify guid

262 Three reviewers searched MEDLINE and electronic databases for

263 Two reviewers searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and other sou

264 Two independent reviewers selected studies and extracted data.

265 Independent reviewers selected studies and extracted data.

266 Data Sources: Two independent reviewers selected studies from PubMed, Scopus, and the

267 Data Extraction: Two reviewers serially abstracted data and independently ass

268 appraisal was undertaken by two independent reviewers-studies were classified, graded, and appraised

269 isk factors, were extracted by 2 independent reviewers, supplemented with de novo data from PROSPER (

270 Reviewers thereby act as critical gatekeepers to high-qu

271 We encourage editors and peer reviewers to consider requiring these key data when revi

272 guage restriction, were screened by pairs of reviewers to identify observational studies related to t

273 Two independent reviewers undertook quality assessment and data extracti

274 Two independent reviewers used standard forms for data extraction and qu

275 Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers using a predesigned data collection form.

276 r observational and descriptive abilities by reviewers using an a priori rubric and masked to group a

277 assessment were completed independently by 2 reviewers using predefined criteria.

278 ure searches were conducted by 3 independent reviewers using several databases, including MEDLINE, EM

279 form and quality assessed by two independent reviewers using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, the Physioth

280 abstracted, and quality was assessed by two reviewers using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

281 The remaining 4 reviewers (validation group) read the consensus group re

282 from each group were duplicated to determine reviewer variability.

283 The reviewers visualized the anastomosis more clearly with 3

284 n bone age estimates of the model and of the reviewers was 0 years, with a mean RMS and MAD of 0.63 a

285 e clinical report and three additional human reviewers was used as the reference standard.

286 d of our series of articles celebrating peer reviewers, we talk to Robert Lowe, who is a Lecturer in

287 y characteristics and results extracted by 1 reviewer were confirmed by a second reviewer.

288 Additional data analyses requested by the reviewers were conducted in August 2015.

289 Two independent reviewers were involved in the study selection process.

290 Discrepancies between reviewers were resolved through discussion and consensus

291 he model, the clinical report, and the three reviewers were within the 95% limits of agreement.

292 "Instructions to reviewers" were available online for only 9 journals (8.

293 Reviewers who insist that quantitative bias analysis be

294 were downloaded and adjudicated by 2 blinded reviewers with an overreader for disagreements and commi

295 %) regarding anastomosis visualization among reviewers with wide-ranging experience.

296 ndom sample of 300 SRs were extracted by one reviewer, with a 10% sample extracted in duplicate.

297 Data were extracted by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved by a third review

298 e abstracted from each article by at least 2 reviewers, with discrepancies reconciled by consensus.

299 Two reviewers worked to answer the five most common and clin

300 etermined inclusion/exclusion criteria, nine reviewers working in pairs assessed the eligibility of t