Table 2 highlights the classification of techniques based on whether it's related to operating system/software/hardware level, the prototype implementation, whether or not the proposed scheme is evaluated, if yes then what experimental setup/methodology is used for evaluation and to what extent the proposed solution is energy-efficient.
Typically manual checking of compliance with guidelines involves checking whether certain conditions evaluate to yes or no, true or false, fulfilled or not fulfilled, i.e. it involves dichotomous or Boolean logic.
We evaluated it as yes if the whole unstained iERM area including its contour looks similar to its corresponding RTM, and no if there was no obvious similarity.
The remaining 11 criteria were evaluated on the scale "yes," "no," "not applicable," "not reported," or "cannot determine," with any response other than "yes" posing a certain risk of bias.
The second study scenario (placebo) was evaluated comparably in group A (yes = 20/47%; no = 11/26%; do not know = 12/28%).
Categoric variables (yes versus no) evaluated as possible confounders included male sex, HLA-B27 (AS), SJC >0 (AS), enthesitis (AS), PGA < "Clear" (PsA), NAPSI >0 (PsA), and ongoing treatment with NSAIDs (AS) or DMARDs (PsA) [ 18, 19].
Normand et al. [ 26] scored "yes" because subjects were evaluated in random order.
Normand et al. [ 26] and Smidt et al. [ 22] scored "yes" because subjects were evaluated separately by the different raters.
The presence of a tidemark (yes or no) was also evaluated.
The total number of "yes" answers in each species was evaluated as the percentage of knowledge of the parrot.
Delphi panel participants evaluated the relevance of each question to EIA detection ("yes"/ no"), and suggested additional items.
