The rationale for this discussion is based on the observation that volatile anesthetics and opioid analgesia suppress cell mediated immunity (CMI), thereby enabling residual or scattered tumor cells that remain after surgical resection to persist, grow, and metastasize to distant sites during the perioperative period [1 3].
The rationale for the discussion is based on the assumption that the advocates of substantial development in aims or content will never get anywhere if they fail to understand and even sometimes respect the inertial constraints that prevent changes from taking place.
The rationale for this discussion is self-evident and was highlighted by the late Prof. Daniel Traber more than a decade ago, "Would you…accept data on a septic patient who was not resuscitated…, …who did not even have blood pressures and heart rates monitored?" [20].
We encourage readers to evaluate the rationale for the discussion of biases within the studies as these represent a critical component – transparency – of the systematic review methodology.
Case rates and even deaths may have been higher in the absence of BCG, but the occurrence of eight deaths associated with the vaccine [ 6- 9] provides ample rationale for a discussion on its risks and continued use.
If telephone contact was established, the OC reviewed the rationale for having a discussion about PSA screening (i.e. men should know the pros and cons of prostate cancer screening before making a decision and the PCP will be able explain these).
As an aid to defining integrative translational research priorities, our goal is not clinical decision support per se; instead, our goal is to provide a framework for the rationale discussion for clinical research's impact of integrating diverse sources of clinical information.
To see the rationale for (2), recall our discussion of confirmation theory (§1.2).
The rationale for using focus group discussions was the expectation that further information about the same concepts may be revealed after reflection in a group context.
Discussion of rationale for the non-identical ratings was completed, and the raters came to a final agreement on each of the 10 cases.
The rationale for this unequal treatment?
