1 In summary, these
methodologic advances allow measurement of stable isotop
2 Methodologic advances as well as improved radiotracer av
3 Methodologic advances include increased use of validated
4 choriomeningitis are reviewed as are recent
methodologic advances that will facilitate the study of
5 This combination includes practical
methodologic advantages and an improved workflow facilit
6 emic response to a single food challenge and
methodologic and biological factors that potentially med
7 ses remains an important issue that may have
methodologic and clinical practice implications.
8 zed through the use of instruments measuring
methodologic and clinical quality.
9 Methodologic and conceptual advances in QOL symptom mana
10 We discuss
methodologic and conceptual problems in the study of ora
11 To this end, we provide a framework of
methodologic and data reporting standards to strengthen
12 s ethical arguments and is entrenched by the
methodologic and logistic barriers encountered with alte
13 ious Gleason score levels, which may reflect
methodologic and physiologic variations.
14 the available data is compromised by several
methodologic and statistical problems.
15 Although
methodologic and task variations may underlie some discr
16 f findings; opportunities afforded by recent
methodologic and technologic advances in PRO data collec
17 We sought to evaluate the ethical,
methodologic,
and practical arguments for and against st
18 There was substantial clinical,
methodologic,
and statistical heterogeneity among the st
19 The
methodologic approach described here could be reproduced
20 u hybridization (FISH) represents the newest
methodologic approach for testing for this genetic alter
21 N) Project was to develop and apply a common
methodologic approach to study dietary patterns and canc
22 Our study found that applying the optimized
methodologic approach, described herein, has a high prob
23 ngle historical period, geographic location,
methodologic approach, disease spectrum, or follow-up in
24 h any large cohort study, high standards for
methodologic approaches are imperative for valid and gen
25 Methodologic approaches, results, and interpretations of
26 reviews on these topics that described novel
methodologic approaches.
27 In this
methodologic article, the extended data of a randomized,
28 s other than QALYs and review, editorial, or
methodologic articles were excluded.
29 Our findings show that some
methodologic aspects of AE collection and analysis were
30 remains a need for more research in several
methodologic aspects of design, analysis, and interpreta
31 The
methodologic attributes and efficacy of the intervention
32 g 88 eligible papers were evaluated for five
methodologic attributes.
33 nt of human PET/MR scanners; briefly discuss
methodologic challenges and opportunities provided by th
34 lorectal cancer screening, to illustrate key
methodologic challenges and suggest a framework for othe
35 Methodologic challenges associated with investigating ch
36 lone PET for treatment monitoring poses some
methodologic challenges for the quantitative analysis of
37 article provides an overview of the emerging
methodologic challenges in the cancer genome era and off
38 Consequently, and in conjunction with the
methodologic challenges inherent in studying individual
39 ogy, it is imperative that we understand the
methodologic challenges of this research and the types o
40 ment of other symptoms, identifies important
methodologic challenges that remain to be solved, and li
41 This paper reviews the
methodologic challenges that slow the research needed to
42 Among the three
methodologic challenges that still need to be solved are
43 importance, and drug resistance and describe
methodologic challenges that, if overcome, would signifi
44 However, there are epidemiologic and
methodologic challenges to accurately estimate the econo
45 This paper describes 5
methodologic challenges to performing systematic reviews
46 We also discuss recently identified
methodologic challenges to the study of knee osteoarthri
47 linical research on acupuncture poses unique
methodologic challenges.
48 The major
methodologic change resulting from the current studies i
49 Methodologic characteristics and overall data quality fo
50 The
methodologic characteristics of studies in coronary sten
51 The
methodologic characteristics of studies were extracted b
52 Due to limited availability,
methodologic complexity, and high costs, it has long bee
53 It also discusses major
methodologic concerns about the available epidemiologic
54 activities, this article first reviews broad
methodologic concerns involved in selecting measures of
55 We also discuss major
methodologic concerns regarding the available epidemiolo
56 Because of
methodologic concerns, this study was designed to examin
57 There are a number of physiologic and
methodologic confounders that can affect HbA1c, but stan
58 Based on
methodologic considerations, frequencies of detection, a
59 An appreciation of
methodologic considerations, including population select
60 as high, moderate, low, or very low based on
methodologic considerations.
61 ence in either direction, largely because of
methodologic constraints such as cross-sectional study d
62 method in these subjects, and the sources of
methodologic contribution to variability of the estimate
63 This approach represents an important
methodologic contribution toward the utilization of nutr
64 in strength with increasing statistical and
methodologic controls for familial confounding.
65 matoid arthritis often fail to meet expected
methodologic criteria and therefore vary significantly i
66 Studies that met
methodologic criteria for minimal bias and had clinical
67 is may be aided by wider promulgation of the
methodologic criteria in surgical journals or at surgica
68 Compliance rates for the 5
methodologic criteria most frequently neglected ranged f
69 On a 38-point
methodologic criteria scale, the mean +/- SD score was 1
70 If a trial meets these
methodologic criteria, it must then fulfill additional c
71 and scored each based on compliance with 10
methodologic criteria.
72 story reinforces the need to understand the
methodologic derivation of statistics intended to compar
73 es of patient-reported outcomes and rigorous
methodologic designs are needed to strengthen and elucid
74 explain how systematic review can help guide
methodologic development for future research.
75 )C MRSI, emphasizing the need for further MR
methodologic development.
76 These new
methodologic developments also call for more multidiscip
77 epeatability highlights the need for further
methodologic developments before much reliance can be pl
78 Recent
methodologic developments include computed tomography an
79 and neck cancer with a focus on research and
methodologic developments of the past year.
80 The objective was to clarify the effects of
methodologic differences between the 3 studies in estima
81 Methodologic differences did not affect HER2-to-CEP17 ra
82 There were no significant
methodologic differences in the men.
83 Methodologic differences in the quantification of levels
84 s of studies from Sweden; patient factors or
methodologic differences may contribute to differences a
85 tivity analyses investigating the effects of
methodologic differences showed no differences to the ov
86 alues in the literature, probably because of
methodologic differences, but agree with a recent study
87 To minimize interstudy
methodologic differences, we used a published real-time
88 es in ECA and NCS results are largely due to
methodologic differences.
89 trauma system effectiveness are fraught with
methodologic difficulties, several types of studies (pan
90 Median (range, IQR) quality scores for each
methodologic domain and for all included studies were co
91 Thirty-eight items distributed in 3
methodologic domains ("study design," "statistical metho
92 Biological variability and
methodologic error contribute equally to the variability
93 The contribution of
methodologic error to the observed variability in the hy
94 Methodologic experts in diagnostic tests were contacted.
95 g measured may affect energy intake and is a
methodologic factor that has received little considerati
96 Several
methodologic factors and limitations among existing stud
97 The effects of these and other
methodologic factors were examined.
98 These
methodologic flaws can lead to false claims, inconsisten
99 While
methodologic flaws hamper drawing strong conclusions fro
100 The review revealed major
methodologic flaws in design, reporting and results of t
101 Despite some
methodologic flaws in the literature, psychological inte
102 for surgical patients is further limited by
methodologic flaws.
103 l, and health outcomes research to provide a
methodologic framework for assessing biologic patient su
104 This proposed
methodologic framework is intended to aid understanding
105 While
methodologic guidelines for cost-effectiveness analyses
106 Given the marked
methodologic heterogeneity and the wide variety of mater
107 y of asthma ascertainment and its associated
methodologic heterogeneity have created significant barr
108 ent evidence base is plagued by considerable
methodologic heterogeneity in all aspects of study desig
109 d the included studies displayed significant
methodologic heterogeneity.
110 These results have major
methodologic implications for genome-wide methylation st
111 This paper reviews the
methodologic improvements and potential neurologic and p
112 nous samples is promising but still requires
methodologic improvements.
113 ion of this association has been obscured by
methodologic inconsistencies in the assessment of whole
114 These
methodologic innovations and discoveries underlie many o
115 , with the discussion encompassing important
methodologic issues associated with determining clinical
116 article highlights examples of approaches to
methodologic issues associated with performing systemati
117 results from analytic studies may be due to
methodologic issues associated with study design, dietar
118 Therefore,
methodologic issues continue to be an area of ongoing di
119 before translating it into a decision rule;
methodologic issues critical to successful impact analys
120 Critical research and
methodologic issues in studying the effects of managed c
121 y has been due, at least in part, to several
methodologic issues in the study of hemostatic factors a
122 e symptoms with particular attention paid to
methodologic issues including application of theory, stu
123 its diagnostic value and clarify some of the
methodologic issues surrounding its use.
124 es key outcomes that need to be assessed and
methodologic issues that need to be addressed when condu
125 ications for neuropathic pain, but there are
methodologic issues with the available studies.
126 A number of
methodologic issues, including conditioning on an interm
127 l, the studies are confounded by a number of
methodologic issues, including the selection of an appro
128 Using a study design that addressed previous
methodologic issues, the authors evaluated personal ther
129 findings are controversial and confounded by
methodologic issues.
130 le experience has been acquired with related
methodologic issues.
131 Three important
methodologic lessons have been learned.
132 anagement of cough has evolved, looks at key
methodologic lessons that have been learned from this re
133 Because most studies had at least one
methodologic limitation, it was difficult to rigorously
134 are tempered by study heterogeneity and
methodologic limitations and a lack of trials that inclu
135 These studies had
methodologic limitations and did not differentiate among
136 All studies had important
methodologic limitations and we judged the overall quali
137 a, but the lack of a clinical definition and
methodologic limitations hamper the interpretation and c
138 associations remain inconclusive because of
methodologic limitations in dietary assessment.
139 ]) and colorectal cancer (CRC) outcomes, but
methodologic limitations including sampling selection bi
140 hese findings are consistent across studies,
methodologic limitations of a lack of a uniform or stand
141 In part, this may result from
methodologic limitations of earlier trials.
142 uclear medicine techniques and, briefly, the
methodologic limitations of sample size, frequency and t
143 The
methodologic limitations of several studies make it diff
144 ic engraftment have been inconclusive due to
methodologic limitations resulting in minimal and ineffi
145 Studies to data have important
methodologic limitations that need to be addressed in fu
146 ly derived from older studies with important
methodologic limitations) do not demonstrate a consisten
147 Methodologic limitations, however, limited interpretatio
148 s limited, and most studies are fraught with
methodologic limitations, including cross-sectional desi
149 although many of the studies have important
methodologic limitations.
150 Studies were few and had many
methodologic limitations.
151 r, and findings are contradictory because of
methodologic limitations.
152 ceridemia was difficult to assess because of
methodologic limitations.
153 f sunscreen use have suffered from important
methodologic limitations.
154 om a relatively small number of studies with
methodologic limitations.
155 Most trials had
methodologic limitations.
156 ufficient attention is paid to technical and
methodologic measurement details.
157 outcome] or not positive), and reporting of
methodologic measures whose inadequate performance may h
158 From a
methodologic perspective, interventions may be tested si
159 bservational studies, and helps avoid common
methodologic pitfalls.
160 In TRACE-CORE, sound
methodologic principles of observational studies converg
161 The standardized
methodologic principles of PRISMA for reporting systemat
162 onducted in women, however, have substantial
methodologic problems and have produced conflicting resu
163 ese modifications will also help to overcome
methodologic problems created by the lack of a reference
164 However,
methodologic problems such as lack of allocation conceal
165 These equations contain
methodologic problems that could make them inappropriate
166 rtant to emphasize, however, that because of
methodologic problems, particularly regarding sleep brux
167 Most studies are limited by
methodologic problems, such as case definition and the s
168 ythematosus (SLE) often have been limited by
methodologic problems.
169 ielded equivocal findings, partly because of
methodologic problems.
170 Methodologic progress, in particular mobilization of neu
171 m Scotland, were identified as being of high
methodologic quality according to predefined selection c
172 Adequate reporting is needed to judge
methodologic quality and assess the risk of bias of surv
173 ons (which are necessary to assess quality);
methodologic quality and clinical relevance scores; and
174 ility criteria were determined to be of high
methodologic quality and enrolled 416,159 total subjects
175 Methodologic quality and frequency of histologic abnorma
176 Studies generally had poor
methodologic quality and limited applicability to curren
177 urther classified according to indicators of
methodologic quality and other study characteristics.
178 ip negatively influences their perception of
methodologic quality and reduces their willingness to be
179 The mean
methodologic quality and relevance scores of articles we
180 heterogeneity among study samples, and poor
methodologic quality in the original studies.
181 Ongoing research of high
methodologic quality is required to consolidate and expa
182 Ts in terms of reporting the use of some key
methodologic quality measures.
183 for chronic abacterial prostatitis, and the
methodologic quality of available studies of diagnostic
184 erature: finding relevant studies, assessing
methodologic quality of diagnostic accuracy studies, and
185 Methodologic quality of each study was appraised using a
186 The
methodologic quality of each study was evaluated by usin
187 he purpose of this study was to evaluate the
methodologic quality of economic analyses of surgical pr
188 The overall
methodologic quality of existing longitudinal studies wa
189 Methodologic quality of included studies was evaluated u
190 ligibility criteria, comprehensive searches,
methodologic quality of included studies, appropriate st
191 ity Assessment Tool was used to evaluate the
methodologic quality of individual studies.
192 earch and Evaluation) was used to assess the
methodologic quality of selected guidelines.
193 The
methodologic quality of studies of diagnostic tests also
194 d quality scales or checklists to assess the
methodologic quality of the primary studies included.
195 The
methodologic quality of the small studies was generally
196 The
methodologic quality of the studies was assessed accordi
197 The
methodologic quality of the taping studies was significa
198 Methodologic quality of the trials was assessed using th
199 The influence of
methodologic quality on relative risk for death suggests
200 nd CVD risk outcomes by using an established
methodologic quality scale.
201 quality was assessed by means of the Heyland
Methodologic Quality Score, and risk of bias was assesse
202 nd systematic reviews should not only follow
methodologic quality standards but also include more sta
203 D risk do not fully comply with contemporary
methodologic quality standards.
204 t been evaluated for satisfying contemporary
methodologic quality standards.
205 rs independently assessed the study data and
methodologic quality using data extraction and assessmen
206 t reviewers assessed all included studies on
methodologic quality using QUADAS-2.
207 ing to predefined criteria and appraised for
methodologic quality using the Assessment of Multiple Sy
208 ll languages were included and evaluated for
methodologic quality using the Jadad scale.
209 Methodologic quality varied, but 30 reviews had AMSTAR r
210 Methodologic quality varied, but few aspects of study qu
211 Their
methodologic quality was assessed by 2 judges using 2 sc
212 Methodologic quality was assessed by using Quality Asses
213 Methodologic quality was assessed by using the Quality A
214 Methodologic quality was assessed using the Quality Asse
215 Methodologic quality was assessed, and effect sizes were
216 Methodologic quality was generally poor.
217 Overall
methodologic quality was high.
218 We observed that
methodologic quality was not uniform and that reproducib
219 nnel plots and the Begg and Egger tests, and
methodologic quality was rated.
220 nd Obstetrics (FIGO) stage distribution, and
methodologic quality were also collected.
221 Criteria used to assess
methodologic quality were blinding, method of allocation
222 Studies of high
methodologic quality were included in the primary analys
223 tion, data extraction, and the assessment of
methodologic quality were performed independently by the
224 ncluded studies were reviewed with regard to
methodologic quality, and study results were extracted.
225 formed to evaluate whether publication year,
methodologic quality, and/or method of evaluation (quali
226 ot associated with statistical significance,
methodologic quality, or other study characteristics.
227 ppropriate for adaptation, with most lacking
methodologic quality, particularly rigor applied during
228 For each article,
methodologic quality, size effect, the periodontal param
229 s independently extracted data and evaluated
methodologic quality.
230 ntervention; and outcomes, and also assessed
methodologic quality.
231 rospective and prospective studies of varied
methodologic quality.
232 of publication, FIGO stage distribution, or
methodologic quality.
233 y was reviewed by 2 observers and graded for
methodologic quality.
234 oids for RA treatment, and many were of poor
methodologic quality.
235 growth charts for preterm infants and their
methodologic quality.
236 Accuracy Studies 2 , tool was used to assess
methodologic quality.
237 es of limited size (n = 7-51) but sufficient
methodologic quality.
238 uded studies (77.8%) presented a medium/high
methodologic quality.
239 ied articles to be included and assessed the
methodologic quality.
240 actual threats to scientific objectivity and
methodologic quality.
241 ery are limited in number and vary widely in
methodologic quality.
242 sive reporting will facilitate assessment of
methodologic quality.
243 agents, unusual clinical manifestations, and
methodologic refinement in diagnosis and treatment.
244 genes was not known, and even after years of
methodologic refinement, more years of effort were neede
245 s are not fully corrected, thus relaxing the
methodologic requirements for obtaining noninvasive esti
246 use and impact of PROs is a growing area of
methodologic research, particularly as they relate to tu
247 f Colorectal Cancer was reviewed by ASCO for
methodologic rigor and considered for endorsement.
248 Studies were reviewed for
methodologic rigor and outcomes.
249 Additional studies with
methodologic rigor are needed for a better understanding
250 e guidance with ASCO's abiding commitment to
methodologic rigor in guideline development.
251 Lack of
methodologic rigor of the reported studies precludes any
252 The
methodologic rigor of trials investigating simulation-ba
253 ed studies were heterogeneous and lacked the
methodologic rigor to draw any conclusions regarding the
254 ASCO staff reviewed the CCO guideline for
methodologic rigor, and an ASCO panel of content experts
255 The trials had high, medium, or low
methodologic rigor, and each report included one of thre
256 trials with a high, medium, or low level of
methodologic rigor.
257 effects were consistent across all levels of
methodologic rigor.
258 g approvals, is being pressed to improve its
methodologic robustness, particularly in the light of mo
259 res ranged from 49 of 78 to 60 of 78 and the
methodologic scores from 12 of 22 to 16 of 22.
260 re evaluated for major potential biases, but
methodologic scoring was not performed.
261 ance of these findings is complicated by the
methodologic shortcomings of many studies.
262 We identified
methodologic shortcomings that contributed to these erro
263 Whereas all but one of the trials did have
methodologic shortcomings that may have allowed the intr
264 Methodologic shortcomings were identified by the adoptio
265 le variability between studies and important
methodologic shortcomings.
266 al value was considered uncertain because of
methodologic shortcomings.
267 Methodologic sources of bias in the reports by Allison e
268 shed studies followed a series of acceptable
methodologic standards and whether failure to follow the
269 cles were evaluated for adherence to minimum
methodologic standards for economic analysis research.
270 Adherence to
methodologic standards for the selection, implementation
271 Adherence to
methodologic standards in the radiology cost-effectivene
272 Failure to follow
methodologic standards may have contributed to discordan
273 We applied a published series of seven
methodologic standards to five reports of the associatio
274 met was 4.1, with 10 articles meeting all 10
methodologic standards.
275 We present and apply integrated
methodologic steps for interrogating WGS data to charact
276 Combined analyses and
methodologic studies have refined estimation of the effe
277 dose-finding trials) and statistical trials (
methodologic studies of dose-escalation designs).
278 eneration exhibit significant structural and
methodologic variability.
279 uniform versus nonuniform patient treatment,
methodologic variations, and correlations with other var
280 To reduce
methodologic variations, only studies reporting in the s
281 The objective of this study was to show the
methodologic weakness of comparing energy density with e
282 relationship between PFO and stroke reflects
methodologic weaknesses in studies using invalid control