"Given that CDC expert protocols were not followed, disciplinary action(s) will be taken as necessary".
This is prudent, given that the protocol adopted by Ashby et al. (1997) introduced the potential for systematic differences between the two studies, thus violating a precondition of hypothesis testing within the Neyman-Pearson framework, namely, that under the conditions tested all mean responses are equal.
Some of the most egregious violators may not sign, while others may sign and simply ignore the provisions, given that the protocol provides no real enforcement to punish violators.
It is more difficult to explain the discrepancies between our study and the one of Saxe and colleagues given that the protocol they used was not detailed enough.
It could therefore be argued that, given that the protocol had already received science and ethics approval local, nationally and internationally, and that the potential costs or risks of archiving for future research are uncertain [ 23], seeking opinions and agreement on procedures including those concerning archive governance was an appropriate primary concern for consultation for KGBC.
Ethical approval is not required given that this is a protocol for a systematic review.
Given that this is a protocol for a systematic review, which utilises published data, ethics is not required for this study.
Ethics is not required for this study, given that this is a protocol for a systematic review, which utilises published data.
Ethics approval is not required for this study given that this is a protocol for a systematic review of published studies.
This review protocol is registered in the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of systematic reviews, registration number 2014 CRD42014007531 Ethics is not required for this study, given that this is a protocol for a systematic review, which uses published data.
