After agreeing on the inclusion of a study, the full texts of the studies were retrieved.
Finally, the full texts of the studies were assessed for inclusion, also by two reviewers independently.
Two review authors, working independently and in parallel, scanned the abstracts for information concerning the association between active or passive smoking and breast cancer risk, and obtained the full texts of the studies when necessary.
The full text of the study, being presented at a meeting of the International Bear Association, is not yet available online, but the WWF published its abstract as part of a press release noting the results.
If the study abstract was considered eligible, the full text of the study was retrieved and evaluated to determine if the study was eligible for inclusion.
Second, the study had to include empirical data from which it drew its findings we had to be able to retrieve relevant statistics from the text of the study, or access its original data set to calculate them.
If a study could not be unequivocally excluded, if there was disagreement between reviewers, or if there was insufficient information in the title and abstract, the full text of the study was obtained.
The text of the study describes a dogged procedure for eliminating certain experiments from contention, based on qualitative attributes like whether or not a given study "assessed the associations of spanking with outcomes within a single group" which would have resulted in unreliable data.
If the reviewer could not determine eligibility from the title and abstract, the full text of the study was retrieved.
He participated in the sampling, interpretation of data and creation of the final text of the study.
