For this reason, we have been inclusive in our selection of studies, resulting in a large number of studies selected for the review.
4. Studies selected for inclusion in the review were critically appraised using a critical interpretive synthesis (Dixon-Woods et al., 2006).
Studies selected for the survey were published between 1995 and 1999 in one of seven specific oncology journals (all with impact factor consistently higher than 2).
The small number of studies selected for analysis was a consequence of the strict inclusion criteria used.
In this article, we will next describe our literature review method and the studies selected for this review.
The nine selected studies report NOEC/LOEC values and EC50 values, but none of the studies selected for this evaluation clearly stated a hypothesis.
Therefore, the analysis of studies selected for this review is focused on three categories of NPIs: primary, secondary and tertiary prevention, as defined previously.
The studies selected for this review show that apprentices are often required to work autonomously and receive support only if necessary.
Studies focusing primarily on guidance were rare, and in many of the studies selected for this review, guidance was something observed alongside other things, but was not the main focus.
While the time-window for measuring repeat victimisation is known to have an effect on results (Farrell et al. 2002), the studies selected for illustration in Table 1 all used a 1 year time-window, therefore, enabling comparison.
Sir, The recent review by Joyce et al. (2016) concludes that early intervention and treatment of bipolar disorder (BD) patients were consistently superior in 10 studies selected for analysis, largely involving short-term responses following an index episode of illness.
