Against the advantage of flexible adaptation to different research aims and populations stands the disadvantage of reduced (international) comparability.
Furthermore, a common data-set across many different research and clinical populations facilitates the generation of large data-sets essential to studies of complex disorders.
If different research studies or population surveys are to be compared, and in most clinical situations, accuracy of clinical laboratory results becomes essential.
It is difficult to evaluate the promise of primary care quality-improvement interventions for depression because published studies have evaluated diverse interventions by using different research designs in dissimilar populations.
To examine this issue, the multiple reward compliance protocol was applied in a number of additional fMRI and event-related potential (ERP) investigations that employed different research assistants and pediatric populations (e.g., children at risk for depression, children with depression and children with anxiety).
Morphometric data on the lingula and its location were studied in different researches, addressing different populations (Table 4); however, we found that there are no studies analyzing the location of the lingula according to the shape of the lingula in adult individuals; furthermore, we found no studies comparing races and there are few that analyze gender differences.
The three most frequently employed methods, designed by Ruff, Grine, and McHenry, were developed using different populations to address different research questions.
For example Zwakhalen et al. [ 21] stressed the "Considerable heterogeneity in terms of design (retrospective vs. prospective), method (pain in vivo vs. observational methods), research population (different types of dementia, different levels of impairment, different settings) and conceptualisation of pain, making their results hard to compare".
To begin with, it must be noted that the studies reviewed above show considerable heterogeneity in terms of design (retrospective vs. prospective), method (pain in vivo vs. observational methods), research population (different types of dementia, different levels of impairment, different settings) and conceptualisation of pain, making their results hard to compare.
Third, hand preference data on the TUBE task have been collected in more than 500 chimpanzees residing in 3 different research laboratories and the evidence of population-level right handedness is consistent across all 3 samples [51].
