Transcription
I hope we can be like him, and I hope we can benefit from him today. Honestly, when I see Dr. Mahmoud, and when I hear, I mean, I read when I had read his link and seen his CV, it always came to my mind the Prophet's hadith, peace be upon him: "The best of people are those who are most beneficial to people." So, I think Dr. Mahmoud perfectly embodies this hadith. I ask God that all the knowledge you have taught to students, all the students you have helped, and every minute you have spent serving researchers, be placed on the scale of your good deeds. We are very happy, Dr. Mahmoud, to have you with us today, and we thank you very much for accepting our invitation and for being with us. You can proceed if you can hear us.
I can hear you, Dr. Mohamed, of course. I was just letting you finish your words, as a gift, as they say. Bless your hands. No, this is the least we can do for you, Doctor.
I will introduce myself anyway in the presentation, God willing. Thank you very much. Thank you for what you have done. I am very happy to be with you. Let's, because I know that everyone here's time is precious, I will start by introducing myself, God willing, at the beginning.
In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. My name is Mahmoud El-Hady. I am in my second year of residency, a cardiologist. I have been in this research stage since 2017, when I was in my second year of college. I love clinical research, although I admit that I will not be interested in it my whole life, but I love it. And this is something, if you only knew, is great in medicine. I have tried to work on the research part, as I told you, since my second year. I couldn't find anything until my fifth year. So, God willing, your opportunities are much better than mine. I am sure that more than half of those present here will be stronger than me, God willing, in all the things that Dr. Mohamed said about me in his research CV.
The second part I like to introduce myself with is that I have always loved volunteering. I have been volunteering for 12 years in many things. And if volunteering is part of my knowledge, then I am honored by that. And the last piece of information you will know about me is that if anyone wants to bribe me with anything, you can bribe me with food. Okay?
What food? So that someone might ask, what food? Any kind of food, God willing.
From the beginning, I want the topic to be interactive. So, the first thing I want to know is the age of the people present with me. In the next minute, I will leave a minute. Or are you not allowing the chat now, Dr. Mohamed? Please confirm this point for me because I forgot to ask about it. The chat is available. If you want the microphones too, that's fine, but because the number is large, we can keep it to chat.
Just chat. Just chat. What can you say? What college are you in, and what year? I like to know who we have with us first.
Can you see the chat, or should I read it?
Honestly, I can't see it, but I don't know if the chat is written to me. There are many people who have sent messages. God willing, we have people from Hadramout, from Alexandria, October City, Zagazig University, and Sohag. God willing, people in their fifth year. We have Fayoum University, fourth year. Tanta University, fifth year. I can't read the names, but college, fifth year. Thank you all first for your interaction.
I want a question faster than that. What is the most difficult thing for people who have started research? What is the most difficult thing you have encountered so far? I mean, feel free, don't be afraid of anything, whether at the beginning or halfway through. Tell me. I want to see the chat. Is this difficult or not? There is an option above. You are likely sharing. When you share, there is an option for chat above.
I am opening "Hide and Show Conversation," but that's what it says.
It's very annoying with the topic of chat. Well, I will try to read. Okay. Yes, please.
Okay. Entering a research project is one of the problems. Sources. Someone says finding an idea, analyzing data, finding an opportunity to participate in research. Organizing the steps, continuity. We don't know how to apply it practically. The step is difficult. I don't know where to start. I am lucky to be with you. Thank you, Dr. Mohamed, first. I apologize for bothering you with me in this meeting.
Well, it's a surprise. Honestly, I didn't know the number would be this large. But I had an intention from the beginning when the idea came up that the most interactive person with me would be the one who would try to be a mentor, if… although I am honored. I am honored to be a mentor, from idea to submission, deadline to reviewer, God willing. We will try to see if the number is large and interactive, we will try to see how to solve this problem at the end. When we open the microphones, we will argue with each other at the end. Okay? So consider that I haven't said anything now because I didn't expect such a large number, God willing. And a piece of information I forgot to mention about myself is that the most important thing is that you know who this person is who will tell you any information. This is a very important part of research skills. And if I am to introduce myself in the research part, what am I best at? I am the one who made the most mistakes and learned in the wrong way. I think if anyone tries to go down the wrong path, I will know it's the wrong path because I have definitely walked it. So I think this is my strength, not my weakness at all. So, God willing, the person I am honored to be a mentor to will see. So, welcome again. We will talk about, consider, a large part of the problems you mentioned, and the main part, this mentor thing, we will see about it later. Types of research. Second research. We will talk about reviews. The second part we will talk about is databases and sources from which you say you don't know how to get research. That is, getting the full text of articles. And a part that, for me, is the joker of this lecture, and what I also faced a lot of difficulty with at the beginning is the idea and how to get an idea and how to know if the idea will be a failure in the end. And what will we do to put it on the shelf of stars.
In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. We are reviewing. You, of course, I am sure from the previous lectures, they talked to you about a general overview of the types of articles, primary and secondary. I think if they even talked to you about secondary, they talked to you briefly, and I will not take long either. I am generally not the type who likes to lecture a lot. I like interaction. There will be a lot of interaction between us, God willing, in the end. So the review family, or secondary research in general, is also a word that is always present, whether from famous research or from existing and known ideas in the scientific description. Reviews are divided into about ten types, and I think these are the ones that exist. I don't think there are more than that. Review, scope review, systematic review, meta-analysis, meta-regression, network meta-analysis. The first two, I don't recommend them at first for students. Especially narrative review. I haven't even tried to publish a research paper yet because I consider that you must be a respectable clinician, skilled, and already have a gap and have a point of view in the science you are talking about or in the scope you want to talk about. And you want to talk about this scope not systematically, and you will not analyze data. You will not get research. You are talking about ideas and you want to see the evidence gap or you want to say that there is something specific and you are gathering ideas from different places with your clinical part, essentially integrating it into this topic. So, it is very useful and gets a lot of citations, but I always consider it, honestly, for skilled clinicians who are interested in this part.
The second is the scoping review. This is something between a narrative and a systematic review. So, what does it do? The scoping review is not essentially focused on new ideas, rare things, things that don't have much research at the moment. We try to see the evidence, try to see what exists now in a way that is more than systematic. Its methods, even if we talk about it methodologically, people sometimes say to include it, and people say no, it's not necessary to include it. The fundamental difference between them is essentially, if we are also talking about it, I don't know if they talked to you about searching in general for reviews or not, but the method then is very simple. You want to talk about a specific idea with a specific PICO. You define your PICO, and this is what we will talk about at the end, but briefly, what do the methods consist of? You will start by talking first about what research you will search for, what databases you will search in, and after searching in the databases, where will you search? What are the inclusion criteria? You have already defined the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and what will you do with them? You will start looking at the risk of bias assessment for your research, and another part related to data extraction, whether baseline, summary, and analysis. So, after that, you put your results. If there is no evidence, then it's a data issue. If it's a systematic review, you have most of the data or the outcomes in your research are completely different from each other. You cannot perform analysis. So, a systematic review. Okay.
Now, if we have data already, more than enough, and you have, instead of this drug, he put his foot, his foot on the ground, and after he put his foot on the ground, he can't compare. So he starts comparing with aspirin, he starts comparing with placebo, he starts comparing with anti-coagulation things, he starts comparing with things. So you have many drugs and many arms. So then you resort to something called network meta-analysis. Network meta-analysis relies on the idea I mentioned, which is that there is a common arm, like aspirin, for example. This common arm is compared with many things. So, we simply want to see who is better than whom in all the interventions and your arms in your work.
To do this, it has a basic condition, which is a common arm. A common arm between the existing research. And statistically, without needing to understand its details too much, you start putting your data [laughter] in. You start seeing the results. When they come out, they start ranking for you who is better than whom in all the outcomes. Its data extraction is a bit more tedious, but essentially, sometimes it is critically needed because, for example, there might be a comparison between arms. For example, now aspirin is compared to placebo, and aspirin is compared to any antiplatelet, like clopidogrel. So you want to see if clopidogrel is better than placebo, for example, or whatever. Or anything from the antiplatelets. So, what are your results? It will give you, or at that time it is called, it will give you. This is for the meta-analysis.
Honestly, I haven't tried it either, and it requires what? If there is already established evidence everywhere, then you essentially need to see if the meta-analyses you have put in can be relied upon, and if there are any positives or problems in them. [Clears throat] Or not. And this is essentially what they rely on for things like guidelines, etc.
So, a show of hands, or… with all due respect, Dr. Mohamed, if we want to quickly confirm that people have grasped at least a small part, we want to compare drug A and drug B. Data already exists. A large number of data exists.
One moment, I will open the microphones. We can choose from those who have raised their hands.
So, I will handle all of them, and whoever wants to answer raises their hand now. One moment, I will raise my hand. Ah, okay. Abd al-Rahman al-Halibi, I have opened the microphone.
Meta-analysis.
Okay, okay. Is there anything else you can do, Abd al-Rahman?
We can do a systematic review first, then a meta-analysis.
Okay. Does anyone else have… Okay. Narmin Ali. Okay. Ziad Ali. Marwan Al-Rawan. Al-Sail. Are you raising your hands to answer, or why are you raising your hands? [Laughter] We are interactive. Marwan, you have opened the microphone. You can answer.
Ah, ah, I can answer. I see that it is a systematic review.
Okay. Can you tell me why?
Because with a systematic review, we get the studies and we review them, and we see who is the best among them. Unlike, for example… and also, it's better to take it with exclusion. The meta-analysis here, we can take the information from the systematic review and put it and put it in the study.
And then…
Okay. Bless your hands.
Okay.
Bless your hands, Marwan.
Okay.
So, your words are correct, of course, but in the end, as I told you, the only fundamental difference between the two, so that if this is not clear to people, the fundamental difference is whether there is data that can be described as… that is, whether there is evidence or outcomes between them or not. It's absolutely not a condition. You can start with a meta-analysis. You can start with this part. So, your words are correct. Often, we also need it. When is a systematic review necessary before a meta-analysis? There is a specific situation where the published research, none of them have common methods. Each one focuses on specific outcomes. So, in order for you to talk about these two comparisons, two arms, you cannot talk about them numerically. You cannot distinguish between them in terms of data analysis. So you will unify them narratively. You will talk, for example, about who is talking. You will talk about the safety part of this research. So anyone who talks about safety, you will put it in a table. Anyone who talks about the efficacy of this matter, you will talk about it in a table. You will talk about it with numbers and with numbers and with evidence. Is that understood?
Okay.
Tell me.
Since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the rest of the research and come up with a result. But let's conclude the matter like this. The analysis is clear.
Okay.
Tell me.
So, since you opened it again, Marwan.
Ah, so since you opened it, no one should be upset. I can't hear you, Marwan, if you can hear me.
Excuse me, Doctor.
Can you just clarify this part? What is the fundamental difference between them?
Okay, I will leave the ideas for the end and the questions for the end. But let me… I like that each part is very clear before we move on. So, again, the simple difference between the two. Both of your review. The existing research. The only difference is that we will add an analysis part. We will add, let's see. So, what is the benefit of the part at the end? A study might say its results. Another study might say the opposite. So, you have what? There is a contradiction in the evidence that exists. So, you will have to, if you are going to talk about this topic narratively, it is impossible, impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, unless one of the studies has results that are clearly flawed. You will start talking about this in the risk of bias. You assessed its assessment and found it to be poor. So you will start saying that the thing is questionable, and you are doing a sensitivity analysis. You might remove the results of this study because of this reason and start analyzing the existing data for high-quality things. And you start talking about the
The Chinese one specifically has no access, you don't know how to reach even half of its research. So, what is this? A tricky point that can burn your research, which is already based on numbers and data. And more than you, the numbers are not the only part. It could be that this data, even if you read its part, you find good research, but you don't know how to reach it. Don't be sad, okay? It happens. You then look for other ways in validity, which we will talk about in a little while. So, it's clear. I think we've covered the part of the screening of the full text. Give me a brief, Dr. Mohamed. Is everything okay or not okay? >> Everything is very okay. Everything is very okay. I am happy with the likes and the love that appeared. [Clears throat] >> Oh, by God, I am happier. Thank you. >> Happy. [Laughs] Many people are sending the screen, meaning it's full of hearts and likes, hearts and likes. >> By God, then thank God. Go on. >> Is anyone struggling with any specific struggle that people are asking about? Open the chat. >> Yes, in the chat or anything, meaning in any specific struggle, before we move to the next point, because validity is the essence of the matter, so I don't want to move on until people are clear about the previous part. >> There are some very big questions, we can leave them for the end of the lecture. Some people are facing, or are there no specific questions? I mean, there are specific questions, meaning a question that everyone is clear about this point. >> I've gone through them. There's nothing, there's nothing repeated. I'll discuss it at the end, after I'm done. [Laughs] Thank you. Okay, let's move on to the part of validity, which is beautiful and, you know, people face a big problem with it. No matter how good you are, the validity point is something subjective, something you can't measure 100%. A large part of it, 90%, depends on intuition. So, this is the beginning of the talk. So, don't worry and don't strain yourself too much at first. As much as you can think, okay. The first word and the most beautiful word for me, and this is what really makes a difference to me, and what people might not like at first, is reading. Reading will make a big difference to you, both in your topic and in your life, and how you know how to read, not the superficial work we always do. Readability, and always look for something you are interested in, and always be patient in reading. Let your eye be quick, and this skill is not only important for research, it's not only important for the researcher. You will benefit from it in your entire life. You will benefit from it in a very technical part. So, read well. This is the first point. Okay, you started reading. I want to, if I, if someone is already interested in a specific topic, I will know what are the new topics in this subject. Okay, my friend, I am a student, and my last interest is to read scientifically, for life and the future, and a tricky part. I will tell you at the end, but let's first [Clears throat] take the steps. So, we discovered in some way that there is something new that the scientific community is interested in, God willing. They are interested in it in many ways. What is it? What can you infer from people? There are new trials, new multicenter studies, meaning that even scientific journalism has started talking about the subject. God forbid, God forbid, you are following things like the European and American Heart Journals and these things. They have started talking about this subject, so you know in some way that this topic is important. So, God forbid, if you are following these things, it will benefit you greatly. You might also say, okay, I will tell you the tricky point. Let's not rush the tricky point now. Okay, you've read. You know what the hot topic is. Okay, you've started reading well about this new hot topic. You start spotting the evidence. For us, what is the most evidence gap we look for? Also, so we don't say things. We don't like vague talk. What is the evidence gap? And then I come to look for an evidence gap, and I don't find any gap. I don't even know how to read. So, the evidence gap we are looking for, look for several things. First, is there any meta-analysis or systematic review or anything covering this subject secondarily? Because, in the end, we are talking about secondary research. We are talking about being students, we don't have patient data to work on. So, we are talking about secondary data. So, first, are there these things? Okay, my friend, no, there are 5000 people talking about this subject. Yes, then God willing. Okay, but at the same time, the subject has become a topic. Okay, is there any meta-analysis? Okay, there is a meta-analysis. Okay, great. So, how far does this meta-analysis cover, my friend? It covers up to 2025. Okay. So, let me tell you, let's take the example we were just talking about, tranexamic acid, looking at its safety effects. Tranexamic acid is primarily of interest in the inter-surgery. So, they started paying attention to it in inter-surgery, and I found many RCTs talking about this subject, comparing it to placebo. I searched and found that in the last meta-analysis, it included five studies. After these five studies, five RCTs, 12. I said, okay, this is great. This is the language of numbers speaking, that things are going well. Some people rely on this part, and thank you, thank you. Some people rely on this part. Do I like it? At your level, even if you don't rely on the language of numbers, at least know how to look at the other part. Okay. So, in the language of numbers, things are beautiful. Move on to the second language. Move on to the analysis. How are people working on analysis? One person might have included all the studies, and his analysis is like hell, or he hasn't done a subgroup analysis or a subgroup analysis. A large part of this might be related to something old or something new, the impact of this subject on old and new people. The studies are already divided, but the RCTs have only done high-level talk and so on. No, my friend, there is a language, the numbers also mean, in the language of analysis, the subject also has missing evidence gaps. If I find another evidence gap, I know how to talk about it, because in the end, the core of meta-analysis is analysis. So, if I find that both are covered, start reading the previous meta-analysis and read the RCTs and start seeing if they were saying that there is no big difference between tranexamic acid and placebo in most outcomes, which is why there is no clear evidence that it might benefit us, even though we recommend seeing new studies and long-term studies. So, from these recommendations, from the last meta-analysis, from the last RCTs in 2025, I found that the new studies actually have a longer follow-up, and they are actually producing new evidence. No, these people are saying that it's better. Okay. So, the discussion and the narrative and the final results will likely have new evidence. Okay. So, there is an evidence gap that I can systematically cover. Beautiful talk, beautiful talk. So, I have a discussion, I can cover it. Methods and analysis, I can add to the language of numbers, I can add to it. What else can I add narratively? The more you read, the more it depends on reading. You found everything is closed, but [snoring sounds] there is an evidence gap that is put somewhere, or a part in the efficacy where everyone is talking about how it reduces intra-cerebral hemorrhage, and they are leaving safety as it is, and that there is a large part in adverse events, severe adverse events, and it appears in many people, these adverse events lead to mortality. And I found that as evidence, it's made by pharmaceutical companies, for example, or they trust it, and this happens a lot, that they must be clear in the data, but in the end, they don't give it good focus. Literally, some people can do a meta-analysis for safety, but if you have a reason, a reason, you can do it. So, no, my friend, I will talk about something that is covered, but narratively and a specific part that people haven't talked about, I will talk about it, my friend. Okay. So, it's good that we add a study, add something, a nice combination. Okay. So, you know, you have found a gap, but you are sure the best and most beautiful thing in this journey, really, really, is that you have a supervisor. And that's why I am very happy with the initiative you are taking, and thank you again. But ask your supervisor, even if they are a year older than you, even if, in the end, the mindset between you is not very different, but even if anything, the supervisor is with you. Even if your colleague is more than enough. Okay. So, ask your supervisor and talk to them and discuss with them. Because, in the end, the leader or the person responsible for the research actually guides it, even if you don't write it yourself, they will review it and tell you, no, we want to go in a specific direction because of one, two, three, and they have a route. This is a part that I hope will happen, because with the many initiatives now, thank God for the science of research, and this is a very beautiful thing. Many people now know how, and this was something we lacked in the community. But, you know, the Egyptian people use their minds and make the shortest paths, with mistakes and the easiest ones. I find "fish, milk, tamarind juice." The leader's job is literally to be the HR of the research. He tells me, "You haven't finished your work yet." Okay, fine. "Finish your work." "You're good, good." "Okay, fine, good. Well done." He gives him the data. "Data, focus well." "Okay." And he gives him, for example, a structure. He collects the data and puts the data. We reviewed it, and everything is beautiful. The writing is good, the plagiarism is good, and thank you. Without rudeness, without someone having a vision for the research in the end, this is what really makes a difference in the end. Many researches, just to be clear, are published. They are published. They might add to science, they add. In the end, no matter what, there is a specific structure that we are all placed in. Even those who review don't have to be superstars. But I don't think this science is built on that. So, my advice, whether you accept it or refuse it, this is what I see. In the end, there must be something you really want to add. There must be a gap you want to cover. There must be a scientific addition that you will be present. And this will not happen with "fish, milk, tamarind juice," and each person doing a small task without someone having a big vision. It is completely normal to divide the work. It is completely normal to distribute roles. It is completely normal to have reviews. The most important thing is vision and someone to supervise. Someone with experience to supervise. These are the reasons why, even in any scoring system, when you grow up, God willing, and do your PhD and so on, the most score is taken by someone. As soon as you find an idea, start immediately. Start immediately. Don't wait. Five days. There is a research I've been struggling with. A cardiology research I love very much. It was related to catheterization, balloon work, and comparing two drugs in a DCB balloon. And it was a research I loved very much. It was a hot topic, and things were beautiful, and I actually finished it quickly. And God forgive them, the journal took its time with me. And this is a part they will definitely talk to you about. Choosing the journal is something. God forgive them. But in the end, if I were slow and took the matter, "Okay, fine, let's gather together." By the time you think, you'll find Pakistanis, or Indians, or Egyptians, and by the way, my colleagues, with the same idea. And you'll find their work, God willing, very beautiful. You won't be able to say anything about them. So, it's published for you. Because, in the end, journals don't see each other much. They play on this death. This is a tricky point in the end. But why put yourself in this difficult zone? In the end, if there is one smart reviewer, he will look at the missing evidence. I do this as a reviewer. Is there really missing evidence in this part? I find two published studies, analysis covering the same thing you covered, with the same data, the same narrative, the same everything. I will give a recommendation to the journal. You will not get any citation from this research because there are one, two, three existing, and you don't need to publish this research for them because, in the end, the evidence is already there. Okay. So, this is the idea. This is a brief overview. There are many details in the middle, and each path, each thing, in the end, will have its experience. So, reading quickly means that you start immediately in three steps. God willing, and an important point. It's completely normal to start with an implementation. And this is my first search strategy in 2019. There was also a beautiful group like you, honestly. Our groups, that's why I expected our groups to be, we were 50 people across Egypt. You understand? You understand? So, I didn't see the numbers, God willing, the interest in this subject in our time. But we were 50 people, for example, in our group, we were five. So, we made a WhatsApp group, and each person put his idea. And I wanted to do a PICO and see the validity of the idea. So, my idea was to see the effect of preparation on social behavior. [Laughs] A very simple, completely flawed search strategy. I jumped into the sea, as they say, and drowned. God willing, I chose the right topic. Preparation immediately led to depression. Then, thank God, I learned the effect of research on our lives. I learned the effect of preparation on my life, on social behavior. I became completely socially biased. I applied the research for the first time in reality. So, of course, I didn't achieve anything in this. And it was very messy. I hadn't specified anything. I didn't have a supervisor to ask. In a group of five, we were all new. This is what came to my mind. I wasn't that interested in depression as much as I know we all, when we are young, in college, we are, you know, cardiology. Slow down, my son. Choose something specific. Make a respectable PICO. See the results of the research. So, you know, but, you know, it's normal to start like this. God willing, you will make many mistakes and succeed more. God willing. But sorry if I took too long. You can ask. And God willing, we will see the subject. I don't even know who to follow, who is interacting with me, to determine. [Clears throat] >> The screen, the screen is full. The screen is full. I don't know which reaction to choose. I am honestly following the lecture. I didn't feel the lecture ending. I didn't feel it at all. The lecture ended. >> Thank you. I enjoyed every minute. Honestly, the information was as if I was hearing it for the first time, and it was arranged in a way, in a terrible way. Lucky, lucky is the one who will be, lucky is the one who will be a director, God willing. God willing. [Laughs] >> God willing. God willing. All of us, God willing. >> No, no, the lecture, the lecture is wonderful, wonderful. Honestly, it's been a long time since I heard something so organized and in this way. Everything is there. Everything follows each other. May God bless you, Dr. Mahmoud. Honestly, this is from you. I know it's from your good taste. I mean, it's much less than this, but this is, this is a valuable source on YouTube. God willing, future generations will benefit greatly from this lecture. [Laughs] >> And God willing, we have about 2000 people currently listening. God willing, they all benefited. If you allow, some people want to ask. >> I mean, see how you can organize it. God help you. >> Okay. There are parts of the chat. Also, in the chat, if you can see it. Many people say the lecture is beautiful. I know. I see the chat. Forgive me. I really don't know how to navigate the chat. I want to leave, for example. >> It's Telegram. Telegram is very annoying. Telegram is very annoying. [Laughs] Some people are not on Telegram. On Teams. >> I mean Teams. I'm sorry. Yes, Teams is very annoying. But Teams, it's annoying in the chat and annoying in the actions. But it's the only one that can handle the capacity. That's why we use it until we find something new, God willing. But, you know, I'm not waiting for feedback. The feedback is there. We will send it after the lecture. A wonderful lecture, wonderful. I thank you. I benefited greatly from it. That's enough, Mohamed. You'll make me feel the same way, and I know that the matter is much more than this. Thank you. [Laughs] >> Okay. Can we take questions? How is it going? We have, for example. >> Okay, okay. So, can we open the part where people ask with microphones? >> While you're gathering the chat, exactly. Okay, fine. One by one. Whoever has any question, raise their hand, and I will open the microphone now. Okay. Muhammad Naimi, can you open the microphone? >> Hello, Muhammad. >> Hello. >> Hello. >> Hello. >> First, I want to thank you. It's a beautiful lecture. We enjoyed it, honestly. I have a question about what if I got an article. >> And during writing the references, I cited this author. Can he later demand that I didn't get his permission or something? >> No, no. No one asks for permission to put a reference. So, let me understand you. Let me make sure I understand you. So, if the matter is that the research is not published, and you mean that it is a subscription, and you got it from Sci-Hub, right? Am I understanding you correctly? >> I got it from Sci-Hub. >> Yes. >> And in the end, it's you. Okay. Impossible. He knows that you got it from Sci-Hub. This is the first thing. Because, in the end, if you paid for the journal, then there is. Is there any way he can know that you got it from Sci-Hub? No. So, can the journal know? >> Impossible. Because, in the end, you are putting his data. You are not telling them the full text. You are not uploading the full text of your included studies to any journal. So, it was like, no. Okay. It was like, no. And if they ask you, okay, I bought it. And someone knows and tells you. No one will prove anything against you. And again, I know it's legal. That's why I don't want us to resort to it, not for them, but for, you know, God to grant us success. But let me also. So, can he ever be upset? Impossible. This citation is an impact for him. It's an impact for him. And if you, oh, if you publish the research in a journal indexed at least in PubMed, he will be very happy. He won't even think of asking you. He will say, "Thank you, my friend." Okay. So, that's the situation. Don't worry. The only loss is the journal, and you have nothing to do with the journal. >> Very good. Thank you. >> Doctor. >> First, hello. >> Hello. >> I wanted to ask you about the Egyptian Knowledge Bank. >> Okay. >> For non-Egyptians. I am not Egyptian. How do we do it for non-Egyptians? Get a national ID from any Egyptian friend. Get the account. It will be a shared account between you. It's very easy. First, God willing. I mean, God willing, the person before you, their accent is likely not Egyptian. Where would you like to know from? >> I am from Sudan. >> Welcome, welcome, my friend. We are all Egyptians, by God. Okay. Generally, honestly, what I know is with the national ID. So, this is the first thing I said. So, the national ID is not just a number for them. Okay. But there is no. Tell me. >> Can it be with a passport number, or not? >> No, no. That's what I'm telling you. National ID. National ID, not just a passport number. But, you know, it's very easy to ask your colleagues. Because, in the end, there is nothing. The idea that he can put in the EKB, there is nothing he will lose if he shares the account with you, with an Egyptian friend. Anyone you know from your family in Egypt, no matter how old they are, young or old, as long as they have an ID card, it's already the same. There is no advantage you will get if a young person at the university has any account. It's like I'm telling you, the password for EKB is the national ID number. Okay. So, I think the matter is simpler than you, you know, creating an account. Ask a colleague to share the account with you. And, you know, please, no one refuse. Because, in the end, there is no chocolate in it. Apart from them being our colleagues, our loved ones, and our brothers, there is no chocolate in it, and there are no secrets, and there is no shame in, you know, sharing something like this. And if someone refuses, Dr. Mohamed, I think you can tell me, and I will give you my account. >> Thank you, doctor. I have a question about EKB. >> Organize yourselves, please. Okay. So, let's go in order. The person speaking now can continue their question, and then we will hear the answers to the questions in the order of raising hands. >> Excuse me, I was second, but I left and re-entered. So, can I ask normally? >> Ask, ask, of course. Doctor, as there is nothing. >> If someone, if someone doesn't believe me, then okay, fine. I can wait. >> Please, go ahead. Okay, okay. Go ahead and ask. >> I had a question, excuse me. It's simple, but it's bothering me. >> Okay. >> I mean, if someone is at the beginning of their research career, starting with a narrative review, not a systematic review. What is the difference between it and starting with a systematic review? There is nothing. You mean, like, career-wise, or CV-wise, meaning career-wise. In the end, you add something to scientific research. If you are first, it's a high point. If you publish in a high journal, it's a high point. So, if you are talking about career, in my opinion, it's not just good reading. I feel that you need to have lived the words you are writing. So, this is my opinion. I know many colleagues who are going with narrative reviews, and they get many citations for them. If you are talking about, you know, about the CV and career and all that, it's already a superstar. You are very good at writing, and they rely on, you know, based on their understanding of the subject, they see an evidence gap and talk about it. And there are studies that are published, published, of course. It's okay. As long as you have something to add, someone will listen to you, as they say. Again, I'm saying this is my personal opinion, nothing more. But I feel that you will talk narratively if you don't feel the subject and live it in your life, it will be a bit detached from you. But at the level of the CV and the good reputation. >> Okay. Can we take two more questions from the doctor? We don't want to take too much from the doctor. >> 10 more minutes. >> With your permission. I know you all want to ask, but there will be a form we will distribute for questions, and it will be announced, of course. If I interrupt anyone while they are asking, but the number is large, and it is necessary. >> Okay. Okay. So, let's go in order. Mahmoud Abdel Gawad. >> Yes. Hello. >> Hello. >> Thank you, doctor, for the lecture. But I wanted to ask two simple questions about the validity of research questions. Meaning, is there a specific time limit that, you know, I got the title, I did a search strategy, I looked, I looked at PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus, and I found that, for example, there is a meta-analysis that was done five or six years ago, and it hasn't been updated. Is there a specific time limit? And a second question, can we know the validity of the question when we apply for Prospero when we do a registration? The system gives me systematic reviews that are close to. >> Your topic, right? Right. Respectable talk. Okay, let me answer the first part. Is there a specific time limit? No, of course not. There is no legal time limit. But, you know, the first question I will ask you is, are you the first one who thought of updating this from six years ago? Make sure that your colleague next to you thought of updating the idea. Okay. So, this is the first question. So, why not? Okay. So, the more the years increase, the more my mind gets guided, like, how, how? I am the genius who discovered this idea from what hasn't been published for seven years. I know there is a problem, and a big problem. So, as a time limit, no, there isn't. For me, the more there is, the more my mind is guided. What is the scientific community interested in, or something I am already interested in, and there is no practical knowledge, but this is still far from you. I work in things like CT scans or cardiology. Sometimes they choose it. Sometimes they do PCI. There is no clear guidance on this part, and the evidence is clear. So, clinical evidence. And I don't mean as a person, I mean as a hospital. So, I already have an idea and a real problem. And I looked at the last meta-analysis available, the last one. So, I looked at the next one. Studies, you know, not very reliable. So, okay. So, there is already a struggle. Even anything that adds to the scientific community now, I see it will add, because I already have a struggle. So, if I don't have anything, then all my vision is from what is available, and what is available can guide me. So, you know, if I were to tell you in terms of numbers, more than a year, and it's a hot topic, and there are new studies available, and more than a year, no one has published. There is something missing, surely you understand. Okay. So, if I give you a specific timeline, a year or more, it might be months. It might be a few months, and you find three or four studies that are updated, and you can update the matter, and there is new evidence, and you can find new evidence. So, this is the first part. The second part, I'm sorry, I forgot to say. Can you repeat it? >> Which is the use of Prospero registration. >> Okay. Prospero now, it used to be, I used to advise not to do Prospero until we were close to the publication stage. Why? As you search, you will find people searching for ideas. If someone tries to publish it before you, thank you. The idea is yours. What is your idea? Currently, all journals have a big red flag that you have been talking for more than a year and your research has not been registered. So, is it possible that this is your idea? No. You are just letting people know. The more you find many people registering in Prospero and your research has not been published, the more it gives you two alarms. You must publish your research quickly because this thing. The more it tells you that your research is going well, your idea is good, your idea is interesting to people. This means there is competition now. Who will publish first, and who will publish first? It's okay. You can, if you publish after them. Okay. There are studies that are not like the fight I'm describing, but it gives you. The more you find your studies, the more you are reassured that your idea is really good and many people are interested in it like you. But at the same time, it tells you, be careful, you will be eaten, you will be burned. It means the competition from the perspective of making my study higher quality, being faster. >> Exactly. An important point in this race. If you have someone strong, you will publish faster. >> But also, like them. >> Thank you very much, doctor. Thank you. >> Doctor, please. I know there are many questions, but we don't want to take too much from the doctor. 10 more minutes. >> With your permission. I know you all want to ask, but there will be a form we will distribute for questions, and it will be announced, of course. If I interrupt anyone while they are asking, but the number is large, and it is necessary.
A little bit, maybe we can take the current order. >> Oh, I just wanted to remind the doctor that he told us he would tell us a trick. >> In the end. >> Yes. >> I can't hear anything, honestly, I'm sorry, I didn't hear anything. >> You told us that I just wanted to remind you that you told us you would tell us a trick in the end. >> Ah, ah, okay, fine. Who is >> I, my name is Riman, ya [laughter] Welcome. >> In a region, ha, New, ha, how can we find these topics? Okay, yes, yes, I really forgot. Quickly, share screen. [Clears throat] Okay, so from the end, I use a simple search strategy. >> I'll write, for example, what? I want the same idea, tranexamic acid. So I'll write, I'll search for something that already exists, which is the word. I say, I'll tell you quickly. You can ask. You can ask. Sometimes you face it, but in the end, I see it's very old for me. Why? Because in the end, our topics change daily. Plus, the databases that are released are updated every five or six months. That's what I know about AI. So, what might you encounter, but about topics, not a complete picture. Okay. I wrote, for example, what? I want tranexamic acid now on the intracranial. >> I write, for example, intracranial, intracerebral. Honestly, I don't really like the word cerebral, but I'll add hemorrhage. Very simple search strategy. >> I did that. I looked first, generally, 104 searches. Probably I have few searches like this, but I made it very simple. But, like, I know now that most of the studies are of a nature. I want to look at. I looked at the last three years. First, I look at the chart quickly. >> I mean, there was a strong interest in 2021, and I actually published a real study in 2022. >> Okay, but from this chart, first, you look at the current trends of what's available. So, okay, I looked at the last thing. They started talking about this, and it's very strange. What's in the trial? And we're still doing it. So there must be something they did differently. So, for me, the word I noticed that was a little different was "two hours." Our timeline was more than two hours. So that means they started to have a lot of guidelines about the word "two hours." So this is the first alarm I put in my mind. Okay. I'm telling you, I'm looking at how the world is. How long is this a very long follow-up duration? >> Something very beautiful, and a CARTS trial in 2006. Phase 2 in intracerebral, also phase 2. So, guys, phase 2? We have published studies, so there must be something new I'm not aware of that I want to look at. >> I'll start. I'm telling you, I'll just look at the studies. I wrote "response," etc. I told you there's a story or traumatic. Did you notice here, for example, the word spontaneous and here traumatic? So the studies I was looking at, they already combined spontaneous and traumatic as a benefit. Now they're starting to separate them. This means there's an effect, but there's a benefit from spontaneous. So they started doing this. So now I have three ideas. I have the idea that they might have focused on "two hours." They might have started focusing on long follow-up. They might have started focusing on it as a category of spontaneous. So I have three ideas now. I'll start. >> I have ideas about what the last trials started talking about. I'll start now. >> I'll do a respectable search strategy and start looking at 2026. Is there, I mean, I'm looking after that. I'll remove this filter. I'll start looking. Of course, my search is very bad now, but let's go with it. >> I'll look at the reviews that talk about this topic. My chart also says what? That in 2020, they were very interested in it. Okay, let me see 2026 now. >> Look at the first thing. The first idea I had without me looking, without me knowing. They started talking about spontaneous as a basic form. So in 2026, in December, we haven't even published. I have an idea now that's burned. I'll start looking at the idea of whether there's anything I can rely on. Is there, I have three ideas. I'm starting from the idea I started talking to you about. The idea is burned. One of them is burned. In the last 2026, there are already two ideas. I'll look for them. The two ideas are not evidence. So, it means we've doubled the bet. Look for another idea. >> I hope I've answered generally in the first topic. In the first topics, why did you choose tranexamic acid from the beginning? It came to >> Okay, let me also quickly. I'm interested. There was someone with me who was very interested in interventional. What's his name? [Clears throat] Neurology. And I'm a cardiologist and deal with vessels. So, what's the common topic between us? Stroke and intracerebral hemorrhage. So, for example, I wrote intracerebral hemorrhage. >> Okay, fine. If I'm saying it practically, I don't care about what I know and what I've followed. I don't know anything about it. >> I'll filter for RCTs. >> And probably it won't appear to me, but as an idea, let me. I'll start looking at the studies available in intracerebral hemorrhage characteristics in 2026. >> There's this factor, the ninth factor, in. Okay. [Snoring sounds] I'll take a quick look. Are there any common studies in the end? Published, for example, something like this is multicenter. So, no matter what's on it, it's probably a hot topic. Chinese herbal formula. Probably not. Not many studies have been published on Chinese herbal formula. So, what? These are things you get from sitting for days. But it's okay. All the methods I'm telling you are not, this is the easiest way. I'm telling you, but I have many ways. But let's say this, for me, this is one of the things that are generally rare. To have early flow. If a new study is published on it, if I go back to the topic, I doubt there will be many updates. There will be evidence. It will be good for intervention, for example. Please. And this is already the evidence. It's from four and a half hours to 24. More than. Probably this idea, without me looking at it, will be burned in some way. Even though it was published in JAMA, which is on the New England Journal. It will be a very good journal, and the evidence will be strong. But, without me looking at it, probably. If I'm talking about it in a simple way, it's haphazard. In a way that I don't know what I'm looking for. In a way that I don't really know what I'm interested in. So I'm looking generally. >> So I'm looking at your level, not the level we want at all. After that. >> I'm now getting studies in the end that have nothing to do with it. Where is the intracerebral? And I want it quickly. Okay, boss. Do it again. Boss, I want it at least, at least, sir, in its field. Thank you for the topic. Look at the last 2026. It became 6 to 29 in the last three years from something like 60. You'll get, of course, the same studies, and you'll take a quick look, and so on. So, the more specific you are, the faster you can decide whether things will go well or badly. The more specific you are from the beginning, the better. The more you are interested in the topic, the more you will know the trend without this randomness. AI can help you identify the topic. Your supervisor can tell you I'm interested in this topic, look for it. You yourself are interested in a specific specialty, so you want to see what's going on in it. There's no yes or no answer. >> Enough of your answer so far. This is a tremendous insight, and I apologize if I interrupted in the middle, but you said something. Yes. No, thank you. I really forgot. >> I truly, truly, I haven't seen anyone with this insight, and I definitely have many questions, but your time, we've tired you out a lot. Together, God willing, soon. The youth, then. We are together, God willing. There will be a lot of movement, doctor, and there are still more questions. >> I'll just take a question from the chat that's asked a lot. If it can be the last question from your time. Is that okay? >> Ah, ah, chat questions. Okay. >> Okay. Several people have asked in the chat about research topics. How do we reach them? The question has been asked four or five times. I know, I know, and I sat for three years, really, three years looking for senior doctors. I told them, please, I know how to do research. Give me anything, and I'll work for free, and I was begging. >> No one paid attention to me, of course. They'd ask me, what's your research experience? I'd say, none. They'd say, I don't have any. I'd talk to research groups working. They'd ask me, what's your experience? I'd say, none. They'd say, none either. So, I don't know how, I don't know how, any individual, to mentor someone and start from the idea until we reach publication, I don't know how. This is something the community itself needs to change because, in the end, the foundation, the foundation in societies that care about scientific research, is that the university brings the ideas and brings the patients and guides you through the process, and your supervisor is something bigger than us, bigger than all of us on our personal level. If you want steps, always look for something you're very good at, someone you can rely on, you can prove that, whether it's or what are the most common things you can get into research, even if you don't have much experience, but you can publish. These are the two most things you can negotiate with without prior publishing experience. >> You can exhaust yourself in one of these two. Skill more than involved. So if I ask you for one of these two, these are the two things. >> It's the same, a little bit with you. >> Okay. So, thank you again. The initiative is beautiful, like what you're doing. This way, I'm very happy with you. I'm very happy with your interest. I'm very happy with your attendance. Even if more than half of you are asleep, for me, less than half is more than enough. Thank you. Thank you. >> So these initiatives will also make a big difference for you, God willing. >> What else? That you find people who can lead you. And God willing, 100 of you will be the leaders later, teaching 1000, and the world will break this vicious cycle. So I don't have any more answers, honestly. And on a personal level, I'll try to do my best, God willing. Exactly. Indeed, doctor. And this is indeed a problem that people face when they are just starting research. But I also see, I mean, I'm not anything, but I say that maybe if someone was showing work, maybe if they started using LinkedIn, they'd post something that they understand. I understand. And people are looking for someone to work with them. They see that they have enough. To the point of LinkedIn. And LinkedIn is a wonderful place. >> So, I think whoever doesn't have a LinkedIn account is missing a big part of the connections. It can facilitate the research process for them. >> And also, Dr. Mahmoud clarified several other points that I honestly hadn't noticed. All these things, God willing, God willing, you'll find. >> There are several others asking how to know that this topic is a topic and how to know that it's an evidence gap. Clinically important. >> How do I know? Where do I get it from? And how do I know it's clinically important so that I can do research on it and it turns out not to be clinically important? >> Yes, yes, I can see all the answers. In the end, the question is, does it have to be clinically important? No. We are not working in reality now. If it were, it would be. And if they are not together at the moment, don't worry too much. >> This is the first point. The second point, I just said, this is a practical way to quickly screen ideas you have in mind. So this is one way. Another way, maybe you don't have ideas. Let AI guide you to some specific ideas and start pursuing them. And as I said, in the end, the more you put yourself in an environment that is entirely mixed or related to the subject, the hot topics will come to you. >> So until you reach that stage, work a little. Or ask your supervisor. Because in the end, it's not like the TV broadcasts news that will hit you. So there's no easy way to find it. I sometimes sit for six years in research. Sometimes there's an idea, and I want to find an idea in cardiology. I want to publish a study within this year because there's something specific I want to do. I might sit for three days, and maybe 10 ideas come out. Okay, what will I do? And on another day, the first idea I'll start with. So don't be sad if you don't find ideas. It's normal. >> Okay, if anyone has another important question, they can send it to the chat until we read the last question. We know we've taken a lot of your time, Dr. Mahmoud. We apologize. >> No, thank you. >> For the absence form, we sent it. I'll close the absence form in 10 minutes. If anyone still doesn't know how to fill out the absence form, they can contact us. >> Someone opened pathology, Suma, or what is this? [Laughter] The exam. The absence form has been sent to the chat. If anyone doesn't know, I'll share a QR code now.