I have attached a file contain more than 10000 words and my application is clear is to use the attached file to work on the coordination of the requirements and remove the excess words so as not to break the meaning and add any additions required in the requirements. you have accepted to do the solution accordingly. I have attached a file and my application is clear is to use the attached file to work on the coordination of the requirements and remove the excess words so as not to break the meaning and increase any additions required in the requirements. ??? have accepted to do the solution accordingly. Yes, this is what I want so that the meaning does not change and make it sequence according to the order required in the guideline and some requirements must be provided according it. The link (https://payments.expertsmind.com/gateway/bluesnap/ ) that was sent is unsafe and my account has been hacked through this is the second time, when you sent any link make sure that its safety and secure. Dear only needs summarize and make the 3000 words from files sent but according to guideline requirements and if any requirements not in file sent you have to add it.

Delete some information which is not necessary and not included in guidelines and add any new information in the guideline. Dear Projects Team I don't want all information in files provide only need the information which is required and delete others. moreover, need to add any pieces of information that should be available as guidelines. I try to do payment put page is not open. I make a payment successful please check your account and start to do the work . Already I attached files contains more than 10.000 words from that file you have to make 3000 words as guideline requirement attached and in first order I clearly mentioned that I attached tow files one for guideline and other one to take information from. Moreover, I mentioned that to considered any requirement information in guideline and not included in file attached.

This is two files of mini review. First file is guideline to write and make solution as per requirements and use other file to get information and make it as guideline required. Writing should be in academic writing and APA references style from 2013 onward. review. Limitations of both the evidence and the review itself should be clearly acknowledged and the implications of this considered.

Dimension Excellent Independent, innovative, high level of analysis, very good synthesis and evaluation Proficient Mostly analytic, content meet most of the requirements Average Competent, reasoned, coherent, evident, justifiable content analysis Poor Evident weakness but some relevant content

Presentation Information is cited properly in an accepted format (APA or Harvard styles). Font, spacing, and wordage are correct. There is 1 or less grammatical error. Information is cited properly. Font and spacing are correct. Wordage out of limit. There are 2 grammatical errors. Information is cited, but has errors. Font, spacing is not consistent. Wordage out of limit. There are 3 grammatical errors. Information is not cited or is cited incorrectly. Font, spacing are incorrect. Wordage out of limit. There are 4 or more grammatical errors.

Discussion - Discussion was succinct and precise conclusions based on the review. -Insights into the problem are appropriate. -Search question were strongly supported in the review. -Student provided concluding remarks that show an analysis and synthesis of ideas occurred. Some of the conclusions, however, were not supported in the discussion. -The search question/s was partially answered. -Student provided concluding remarks that show an analysis and synthesis of ideas occurred. These conclusions, however, were not supported in the discussion. -The search/s question was partially answered. -Poor discussion. -There is no indication the student tried to synthesize the information or draw a conclusion. No answer to search question/s is provided. Conclusion Detailed conclusions are reached from the evidence offered. Conclusions are reached from the evidence offered. There is some indication of conclusions from the evidence offered. No conclusions are made from the evidence offered.

The following areas partially stated and applied: - The overall appraisal of the results of the search (e.g. volume nature and quality of the literature) was stated. - Reasons for exclusion of potentially relevant studies were clearly indicated. -Critical appraisal was evident and systematic. -Main design features, study populations and findings of the studies identified for review were extracted. Limited application of the following areas: - The overall appraisal of the results of the search (e.g. volume nature and quality of the literature) was stated. - Reasons for exclusion of potentially relevant studies were clearly indicated. -Critical appraisal was evident and systematic. -Main design features, study populations and findings of the studies identified for review were extracted.

Findings of the review The following areas were stated and applied: - The overall appraisal of the results of the search (e.g. volume nature and quality of the literature) was stated. - Reasons for exclusion of potentially relevant studies were clearly indicated. -Critical appraisal was evident and systematic. -Main design features, study populations and findings of the studies identified for review were extracted. The following areas satisfactory stated and applied: - The overall appraisal of the results of the search (e.g. volume nature and quality of the literature) was stated. - Reasons for exclusion of potentially relevant studies were clearly indicated. -Critical appraisal was evident and systematic. -Main design features, study populations and findings of the studies identified for review were extracted.

The following areas/criteria partially stated and applied: - Inclusion and exclusion of studies are stated, applied, and appropriate to the question asked. - The search strategy is described including key words, index terms and any limits or methodological filters used. - Databases searched are identified including known limitations in coverage of the search. -Databases searched are appropriate to the question asked and criteria set. Limited application of the following areas: - Inclusion and exclusion of studies are stated, applied, and appropriate to the question asked. - The search strategy is described including key words, index terms and any limits or methodological filters used. - Databases searched are identified including known limitations in coverage of the search. -Databases searched are appropriate to the question asked and criteria set.

Method The following areas/criteria were stated and applied: - Inclusion and exclusion of studies are stated, applied, and appropriate to the question asked. - The search strategy is described including key words, index terms and any limits or methodological filters used. - Databases searched are identified including known limitations in coverage of the search. -At minimum three databases searched are appropriate to the question asked and criteria set. The following areas/criteria satisfactory stated and applied: - Inclusion and exclusion of studies are stated, applied, and appropriate to the question asked. - The search strategy is described including key words, index terms and any limits or methodological filters used. - Databases searched are identified including known limitations in coverage of the search. -Databases searched are appropriate to the question asked and criteria set.

Component Description Score Excellent (4 marks) Proficient (3 marks) Average (2 marks) Poor (1 marks) Abstract The main question, methods, and findings and conclusions of the review are given in 200–300 words. The main question, methods, and findings and conclusions of the review are given in below/above 200–300 words. Not all the parts of the abstract are stated and are not in sequence. Weakly organized with no logical sequencing or structure of the abstract. Background of review and search question Research question(s) are formed through the literature review and clearly stated using PICO statement. Research question(s) are formed through the literature review using PICO statement. Research question(s) were not formed but could be formed through the literature review. Research question(s) were not formed and are not apparent from the literature review.