All studies differed in diagnostic tools and primary efficacy measures.
The studies differed in their sample size, design and the method of practicing dharana and dhyana.
Studies differed in type of stress exposure, method to measure telomere length and cell type.
Second, the studies differed in what they included in overhead costs, with the Nelson study allocating a far higher overhead rate.
All studies differed in design; the reported take rate varied between 11% and 80%, with the implantation via dorsal incision and with matrigel obtaining the higher take rate.
First, samples from included twin studies differed in their age, baseline values, PA interventions, and diet interventions.
In addition, the previous studies differed in their design and methodology, rendering them incomparable to newer Utstein style-based studies.
Although these studies differed in their locations, years, and methods, Spelman (1986) found that the curves from the different studies were very similar in shape.
Twin studies differed in sample age, baseline values, and PA intervention, although the exclusion of any one study did not affect the results.
Definitive conclusions based on these results are difficult because studies differed in design, clinical phenotype assessed (severe or uncomplicated malaria), or methods to identify G6PD deficiency.
The five studies differed in methodology.
