A small study has indicated that an early increase in apoptosis as measured in fine-needle aspirates (FNA) by flow cytometry was significantly associated with clinical response in breast cancer, but this methodology was noted to be complicated by problems of precision (Chang et al, 1999).
Following a close scrutiny of these methodologies, several limitations are noted and discussed, and based on these insights, future work is suggested to enhance and improve this category of models further.
Although the analyses done in that study cannot be directly compared with our study because of differences in methodology, some generalizations are noted below.
The aim is to understand to what extent bibliometric methodology, which is noted as relatively inexpensive, time-saving and exhaustive, can complement and integrate peer review methodology in research evaluation.
Nevertheless, several limitations in the methodology should be noted.
A number of limitations to our study, because of our choice of methodology, should be noted.
A few limitations of the systematic review methodology should be noted.
Two limitations of the methodology need to be noted.
As a methodology, it should be noted that MEAD allows the analyst to incorporate tools and techniques from other domains.
In acknowledgement that qualitative research is rarely produced via a single, "pure' use of a methodology, it should be noted that this study has Grounded Theory overtones [ 33, 34].
