Overviews of reviews are a relatively new form of knowledge synthesis that aims to bring together evidence from two or more systematic reviews, for example multiple systematic reviews examining different interventions for a single condition [ 5].
Also, though the review adhered to the principles underlying systematic reviews, it differs from most quantitative systematic reviews, for example in omitting an assessment of risk of bias.
First, our review, even if performed in a systematic methodology, did not respect all the criteria for systematic reviews (for example we consulted only two electronic database) so we cannot make strong and quantitative conclusions.
22 Hence there is also a need to manage the scatter of systematic reviews, for example, through a registry of planned and completed systematic reviews, such as www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero.ac.uk/prospero
The errors should include both the statistical errors (due to finite sampling) and the estimated systematic errors (for example, due to the use of incomplete performance yardsticks).
These comparisons contribute to the validation of these data products by detecting systematic deviations, for example, wrong tangent height determinations, spectroscopic errors, and others.
To avoid additional systematic errors, for example by photobleaching or mechanical drift out of the objective plane, also the filter which was used first had been alternated from sequence to sequence.
We address two preliminary issues: (1) whether IONM should be evaluated as a diagnostic test or an intervention, and (2) the state of the evidence for IONM (as presented in systematic reviews, for example).
A problem for the view that Cavendish is making this third maneuver is that the view is not supported by textual evidence, but just by systematic evidence — for example, that Cavendish holds that natural reason cannot have an idea of an immaterial.
However, users of OQAQ frequently had to develop their own rules for operationalizing the instrument and OQAQ does not reflect current evidence on sources of potential bias in systematic reviews (for example funding source and conflict of interest [68], [69], [70]).
