Methodological deficiencies are defined as an inappropriate methodology of the indirect comparison, as for example heterogeneity of study results within MTC, non-similarity of studies, inconsistencies of outcomes of comparisons.
These comparisons recapitulated outcomes of comparisons in which TEs are simply aggregated for each Promoter set (see RESULTS).
Fig. 7 Meshed partitioning using replication factor 2. The algorithm for calculating the "reputation" of a result must take into account the outcome of comparison points (i.e., equal or different output).
Therefore, a significant outcome of Comparison 2 often implies a significant outcome for Comparison 3, provided that the classifier has a high specificity (Table 1).
Main outcome variable of comparison was change in per cent of predicted forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) from baseline to discharge.
Therefore, the comparisons are probabilistic; meaning that the outcomes of the comparisons are based on frequency, or some likelihood and qualitative judgment.
The differences between outcomes of other comparisons were not significant.
Figure 3 shows a summary of the outcomes of matrix comparisons.
The outcomes of the comparisons with human tissue levels are not biased because of inconsistent application of low-dose estimation procedures.
Studies were classified as case-series, if they reported birth outcome in a cohort of women with cancer without comparing it with the outcome of a comparison group.
