Thresholds for interpretation of the change were: small (0.2 to 0.49), moderate (0.5 to 0.79) and large (≥0.8) [ 34, 35].
Heterogeneity was analysed using the I2 statistics, and the thresholds for interpretation were used as defined in the Cochrane Handbook [ 10].
As suggested by Field (2009) [ 31], a sample size of 50 individuals can be satisfactory for factor analysis, if more restrictive thresholds for interpretation of factor loading are employed.
In this particular aspect, important factors may affect IHC efficiency and reproducibility, not to mention tissue fixation (both type and duration), the choice of antibody, and the threshold for interpretation of positive immunostaining [ 35].
However, it is important to note that thresholds for the interpretation of I can be misleading, since the value depends on several factors such as study design, size of effect estimates and significance levels.
Thresholds for the interpretation of EORTC QLQ-C30 scores were established by Osoba et al. [ 10]: a change in the score from 5 to 10 can be interpreted as a small change in the HRQL, a change in the score from 10 to 20 can be interpreted as a moderate change in the HRQL and a change in the score above 20 can be interpreted as a large change in the HRQL.
Moreover, the ΔCOPLR cutoff for predicting fluid responsiveness is also consistent with previous studies in which esophageal Doppler was employed [1, 11] and similar to the recommended threshold value for interpretation of PLR maneuver effects [6, 34].
A threshold value for interpretation of results was determined as mean plus 3 standard deviations of duplicate net OD readings for negative control serum.
Moreover, the ΔCOPLR cutoff for predicting fluid responsiveness is also consistent with previous studies in which esophageal Doppler was employed [ 1, 11] and similar to the recommended threshold value for interpretation of PLR maneuver effects [ 6, 34].
In factor analysis, if the factor loading threshold used for interpretation was reduced from 0.4 to 0.3 [ 17, 33], leptin would have loaded onto all three factors in girls, thus, potentially playing a unifying role.
Third, the lack of a standardised scoring system and absence of a uniform cut-off (threshold) for the interpretation of IHC remains problematic.
