Assumptions and errors of the methodology are analyzed.
In the calibration case chosen in this paper, it accounts only for about 4% overall (Fig. 8) – smaller than the expected error of the methodology to calculate operation emissions.
This discrepancy may be ascribed to the errors of the theoretical methodology.
Within the intrinsic errors of our computational methodology one cannot predict whether the barrier involving 2 or 4 is preferred and both may be operative.
The proposed modular approach provides the same results as the traditional propagation of errors methodology with fewer conceptual steps allowing for a relatively straightforward implementation of a comprehensive uncertainty analysis effort.
Despite the widespread use of resonance methods, there are errors associated with this type of methodology.
To conclude, the results of the study, using Rapid Assessment of Refractive Errors methodology, revealed several barriers to utilisation of refraction services in Mahbubnagar district in Andhra Pradesh, India.
A more robust approach to trial design in terms of methodology and error analysis is needed.
Other potential sources of errors in the methodology are sequence-specific PCR amplification differences and biases introduced by DNA extraction.
