These studies were pivotal in identifying the need for infant-specific protocols, delineating prognostic categories and the requirement for a more unified approach between study groups to overcome limitations in accrual because of low incidence.
Despite suboptimal outcomes, this period in the history of clinical trials for infant ALL was pivotal in defining the foundations for future therapy, namely the need for infant-specific ALL protocols, delineation of prognostic categories to allow for risk stratification within infant ALL and a more unified approach between study groups to overcome limitations in accrual because of low incidence.
Rather, it could reflect differences in the patient population or analytic approach between our study and that of Wang and colleagues [ 14].
16 Although a random-effects approach explicitly models between-study heterogeneity, it does not explain it.
The bivariate approach investigates potential between-study heterogeneity and takes into account possible correlation between SEN and SPE.
The disagreement in results with previous studies can be due to variation in song repertoire learning programmes between the studied populations or by differences in methodological approaches between the studies.
In the two stage approach the heterogeneity between studies was significant (P=0.001).
Using a between-studies approach, a within-studies approach, and a Bayesian analysis, we found evidence that the effect of aspirin among patients with diabetes was not significantly different from patients without diabetes.
Whereas the experimental approaches may vary between studies, the general principles are the same and are based on the extrapolation of the rate of degradation at two or more temperatures above the intended condition, using the Arrhenius Relationship (Eq. 1).
Similarly, there were differences, although only approaching statistical significance, between studies with small and large sample sizes (p = 0.092).
