Mentors can significantly assist with: recommendations for meetings, funding sources, paper reviews, tenure guidance, negotiation advice, departmental politics, and numerous other details critical to success in any field of science.
The data for this cross-sectional survey came from two sources: paper questionnaires filled by conference delegates, and online questionnaires.
Each question is tagged with information on its source papers.
Although the source papers present results in various ways, complicating meta-analysis, they are very consistent.
Obtaining a reliable definition of outcome and exposure is often hindered by incomplete information in the source papers.
Health outcomes for all of the engine inputs, except diabetes duration, were obtained from the main source papers [ 10, 12].
Third, the formulation of questions was generalised, when possible, to make them reusable in broader situations than those in the source papers.
Sensitivity, specificity, true positives (TP), false positives (FP), true negatives (TN) and false negatives (FN) were taken directly from the source papers.
Discrepancies were resolved with 100% agreement after rechecking the source papers and further discussion among the reviewers, with full consensus before drafting the article.
Any discrepancies were resolved through the involvement of a third reviewer (DG or YKL or AMW) after rechecking the source papers.
