For this study, we have excluded 3 subscales, environment, cost, and availability, because the intervention does not intend to change these outcomes.
This is either because the intervention does not produce infarcts, or because this was not reported as an outcome measure (Lee et al., 2009; Park et al., 2008; Prunell et al., 2003).
Because this kind of intervention does not require active participation or attention of the subjects, we anticipate that coactivation is a prime candidate for future therapeutic interventions in patients with impaired sensorimotor abilities.
Because there is no perfect intervention, does that mean we don't intervene at all? Sure, making it illegal to sell obscenely-sized vats of sugar and chemicals is a logistical nightmare, fraught with problems and far from ideal.
This is especially important because restrictive use of this intervention does not affect neonatal outcomes [ 26] and is associated with reduced blood loss [ 27].
Hence, the researcher cannot manipulate all treatment variables for the purposes of testing a priori hypotheses either because the context of the intervention does not support this or for ethical reasons.
Twenty were excluded because the intervention did not meet the inclusion criteria and 4 because of not reliable data.
Because the intervention did not succeed well (see Results), no power calculations were made even later.
This was because the intervention did not move patients from the smallest volume group only; the benefit to patients moving from other volume groups was smaller.
However, because the intervention did not succeed (see Results), only basic outcome data were analyzed and cluster effect was not taken into account.
