Although discrepancies between published reports are small, the lack of reporting SEM and SDD values in most studies precludes comparisons, as reliability cannot be thoroughly evaluated without these reliability indices.
Most studies utilise comparisons of cancer cell lines or cancer tissue samples with normal tissue to identify cancer-associated epigenetic aberrations that occur during tumour development.
In most previous studies, comparisons were made using categories for age at first menstruation of 12 13 and >15 years old [ 22] and age at first birth of ≤24 and >30 years old [ 23].
This could be due to the fact that in most studies, the comparison of the detection of CTCs and DTCs was carried out using immunocytochemical assays, which, in general, have a lower sensitivity compared with molecular assays.
Most studies constrain to comparisons with healthy controls which indicate major impairments in affected patients [ 8, 9, 16, 17] and the effects of enzyme replacement therapy on HRQoL.
The selection of holding the baby as the primary intervention reflects the primacy of this practice in debate and controversies surrounding clinical guidance, 13 19 and a preliminary review of the literature revealed that most studies focused on comparisons of holding.
As shown in Table 1, most studies lacked a comparison group in their design.
The interventions had been evaluated in studies from 3 months to 3 years, and most studies involved a comparison of computerised drug order entry systems, with or without clinical decision support systems (CDSS), and/or with handwritten prescriptions.
Additionally, most studies evaluating IHLOC use comparisons of means which makes comparisons between studies difficult when conducting different analyses.
This study is strengthened by statistical comparisons of incident mortality, presented in conjunction with case fatality, which assists inter-study comparisons because most studies present one but not both statistics.
