Results are presented in both a quantitative narrative summary and tabular/graphical presentation of data. Munn, Tufanaru and Aromataris (2013) avow that, by using these, readers will find it easier to discern evidence weightingweighing and whether conclusion bias is present. These methods are used sincebecause heterogeneity precluded the use of a meta-analysis, which integrates findings by statistically analysing individual study results. Sources of heterogeneity included different methodologies, equipment, parameters and populations. Forest plots, without a meta-analysis component, are used as graphical presentation. Campbell, et al. (2015) declare that these plots graphically present sensitivity and specificity CI and mean values. Results of individual study characteristics and diagnostic accuracy measurements are furthermore displayed in tabular form.
Vergnes, et al. (2010) mention that systematic reviews have the potential for including unethical articles which are encouraged by the exhaustive information search to avoid publication bias. Careful consideration forof the inclusion of immoral items was given due to morality, and an ethical assessment was conducted on included articles. The authors recommend considering the Declaration of Helsinki, seen as the foundation of modern ethics, and contacting authors in case of insufficient ethics. The ethical assessment was, therefore, based on fundamental principles found in the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki (2013): Ethical board approval, informed consent, qualification of researchers, risk versus benefit assessment, as well as the declaration of COIs. The ethical assessment results, performed by a single individual (SID 162097), are presented in Table 2 on page 19.