After testing these hypotheses with cartographical and statistical methods, our findings demonstrate strong support for Mobility, and mixed support for The Rise of New Audiences and Residential Pattern.
With respect to the applicability of fingerprint methods, our findings imply that the additional use of such methods is most promising for proteins for which many complexes with ideally highly potent inhibitors are available that exhibit specific interactions.
Although direct comparison of our PA values with those from other cadaveric and imaging studies is difficult due to differences in measurement methods, our findings support the general trends reported in these previous studies.
Despite some weaknesses in the methods, our findings strongly suggest that GMIS is an effective mechanism to complement other interventions to improve health system performance and boost deliveries by trained health personnel in public health facilities, especially at health centres, thereby contributing to the reduction of maternal mortality.
In the complete absence of direct evidence (a common scenario for using indirect comparison methods), our finding of higher than expected prevalence of significant discrepancies (14% v 5% expected) between direct and indirect evidence suggests a need for some caution in relying on indirect comparisons to make firm conclusions.
In light of the strong influence of data collection method on our findings, we did not attempt to infer meaning from the frequency of causes reported across included papers, as this may be misleading.
The study design and methods allowed our findings to be representative of the United States school enrolled population, encompassing all regions of country, urbanicity types, school sizes/types, and racial/ethnic groups.
While it is to note that these results have to be treated cautiously as the stability of the findings is sensitive to including further variables, the results for the empirical quantitative and qualitative as well as the verbal-analytical methods corroborate our findings from the univariate analysis in Table 6.
Similarity of the data based on these two methods reinforces our findings.
