Differences between results may be explained by differences in study populations and different availability of treatment alternatives.
6, 7 The discrepancy in the findings of different studies may be explained by differences in study populations and ethnic groups.
These different findings can be explained by differences in study designs, such as the incorporation of artificial pitfalls in the present study.
The conflicting results may be explained by differences in study designs, including size, different genetic models for the assessment of phenotypes, or dosing regimens.
However, between-study comparisons are limited by differences in study design, exposure assessment, and different outcome definitions (IUGR or birth weight treated as continuous or dichotomous variable).
The different prevalence rates reported in the literature can be partly explained by differences in study design, lack of standardized diagnostics and regional differences (ethnicity, rurality, climatic influences, etc).
This variation in frequency might be explained by differences in study design and patient inclusion criteria.
Ratios >1 seem to be caused predominantly by differences in study design parameters.
A peer review workshop held in Raleigh, NC, in 1998 concluded that the inconsistencies between the Faroes and Seychelles findings could be explained by differences in study design and sources of exposure.
To evaluate whether differences in results between studies that involve preimplantation genetic diagnosis for chromosome testing are affected by technology, such as the number of cells to be biopsied or by differences in study design.
The controversy regarding the clinical implications of thrombophilias in pregnancy is clouded by differences in study populations, the number of thrombophilias tested, interactions between thrombophilias, and the retrospective nature of most studies, just to name a few factors.
