Consequently, until a method to quantitatively synthesize results has been developed, a sensible qualitative data-synthesis, which takes methodological differences between primary studies into account, is indicated.
In two papers (S16, S29) reviewers grouped primary studies into smaller 'sets' according to their main research focus and synthesised each of these sets separately before drawing them together in an over-arching synthesis.
We created a dataset by assigning each RR extracted from each primary study into its corresponding standardized category according to the range or median amount of fish intake in the category.
Specific statistical methods may be required to allow incorporation of such a primary study into an overall pooled estimate or for calculation of confidence intervals.
The synthesis took the form of three stages which overlapped to some degree: the free line-by-line coding of the findings of primary studies; the organisation of these 'free codes' into related areas to construct 'descriptive' themes; and the development of 'analytical' themes.
The analysis involved coding of the findings of primary studies and the organisation of these 'free codes' into themes.
We will systematically capture the questions and issues from these 10 primary studies and feed them into the deliberations of the Delphi panel (where timings permit) and, if relevant, the training materials and courses described below.
However, only one systematic review and two primary studies came into this category, and excluding studies from LMICs is unlikely to have affected our conclusions.
In a meta-analysis, the effects found in the primary studies are converted into a standardized effect size, which is no longer placed on the original measurement scale, and can therefore be compared with measures from other scales.
This included 578 of the 583 patients enrolled in the extension study, as well as the 369 patients who received at least one dose of DSG in the primary studies but did not continue into the extension study.
