Sentence examples for methodological heterogeneity in from inspiring English sources

Clinical and methodological heterogeneity in interventions precluded meta-analyses, and so data were analysed narratively.

A meta-analysis could not be performed because there was significant clinical and methodological heterogeneity in the included studies.

Statistical pooling of the included studies was not feasible due to methodological heterogeneity in interventions, patient characteristics, and outcomes.

This adds a confounding source of methodological heterogeneity in the currently available literature on biomarkers in schizophrenia.

Owing to clinical and methodological heterogeneity in the design, conduct and outcomes reported within the included studies, formal meta-analyses were not attempted.

Overall, it is evident that there is a great deal of methodological heterogeneity in the use of non-invasive brain stimulation in these studies.

The problem thus lies with the recognition of heterogeneity in a trial, which includes clinical heterogeneity (variability in the participants, interventions and outcomes), methodological heterogeneity (variability in trial design and quality) and statistical heterogeneity (variability in the treatment effects evaluated in different trials).

Fourthly, the statistical heterogeneity was not obvious in this meta-analysis, but the clinical and methodological heterogeneity existed in the baseline demographic characteristics, including population, tumor types and stages, the cut-off value of miR-375 expression, and duration of follow-up.

Variability in the participants, the types or timing of outcome measurements, and intervention characteristics may be termed clinical heterogeneity; variability in the trial design and quality is typically termed methodological heterogeneity; variability in summary treatment effects between trials is termed statistical heterogeneity [ 1].

The lack of a validated, mutually accepted case definition and diagnostic instrument affects the quality of the research outcomes and increases the methodological heterogeneity, resulting in limited comparability between the studies.

Examples of this methodological heterogeneity are provided in the cross-site papers included in this supplement [ 14, 15].