Accordingly, there are two fundamental types of methodological inadequacy in current epidemiologic investigations of interaction.
Due to the scarcity of papers included (seven), significant heterogeneity of CM interventions and effects studied, and the methodological inadequacies, no conclusions on the effects of CM in cancer patient care can be made.
The evidence-base for breast cancer-related lymphoedema risk reduction advice is scant and contradictory, with most studies in the area limited by small numbers, retrospective design and other methodological inadequacies.
However, because of methodological inadequacies hypnotherapy is still criticized for not having strong scientific evidence to support its claims.
Furthermore, indirect evidence can be more reliable than direct evidence in some cases, for instance, when direct evidence is biased due to the methodological inadequacies of trials that compare the treatments directly [1].
They excluded most of these candidate studies, however, because of methodological inadequacies.
The methodological inadequacies of some studies have been described (Salsman et al, 2004).
Much of this research, however, suffers from notable methodological inadequacies, which include lack of randomization, small sample size, and short duration, among others.
Methodological inadequacies, lack of originality or focus on local issues could be reasons for rejecting such manuscripts if they were to be resubmitted.
