Meta-analysis is an indispensable tool in current-day synthesis of research data from multiple studies, and systematic reviews with meta-analyses occupy the top position in the hierarchy of evidence.
We collected data from multiple sources and used a systematic approach for deciding which systems would and would not be described.
Thus, the results represent pooled data from multiple sites to reduce any potential impact from systematic or inadvertent error from any one site.
Therefore, meta-analysis, a systematic statistical synthesis of data from multiple studies, has been widely used to aggregate evidence from related studies (Manoli et al., 2006).
Third, we have used data from multiple pathologists conducting a standardised and validated tumour review and any systematic variation across the pathologists would mean that our study has under-estimated the predictive value of these morphology features.
The interior structure is not easily accessible without systematic imaging using, e.g., radar transmission and reflection data from multiple viewpoints, as in medical tomography.
Systematic reviews sometimes apply statistical techniques to combine data from multiple studies resulting in a meta-analysis.
However, our systematic review could fulfill all of the established criteria by collectively analyzing data from multiple studies.
For purposes of the systematic review, we will use the term 'observatory' to denote a surveillance system that collects data from multiple sources, for example, crime, clinical and forensic data, whereas injury surveillance systems almost exclusively focus on the use of injury data alone.
Systematic comparison of observational national-level case studies in terms of six media of power, using data from multiple sources.
