Sentence examples for discussions were excluded from inspiring English sources

Biomechanical studies, cadaveric studies, technique demonstrations and panel discussions were excluded.

Those studies using sex/gender as a covariate that did not interpret sex/gender in their discussions were excluded.

In a second step, irrelevant articles (for example, other definitions of IFs, false contexts or theoretical discussions) were excluded, and we searched in abstracts for cues for the empirical evidence of genomic IFs (38 articles).

CONSORT items under "discussion" were excluded as we deemed them to be too subjective to assess.

Headlines appearing only in "Discussion" are excluded.

The CONSORT discussion items were excluded because of the subjective nature in assessing them.

Articles and reports that did not mention refugee setting as well as viewpoints and discussion papers were excluded.

The median start date was in 2006 (range 1997 2011); when studies evaluating discussion forums were excluded, the start date was more recent (median 2008, range 2000 2011).

Nearly all included studies were published as journal articles (255/284; 89.8%); however, when studies of discussion forums were excluded, the proportion of dissertations written on the use of social media increased (14/284 to 12/95; 4.9 12.6%).

Non-systematic reviews, opinions, books, book chapters, discussions and letters were excluded.

Discussions about prognosis alone were excluded, as were discussions occurring outside the NICU.