Barely Significant

Excerpts

3,451 sentences · 1 filter applied

an increasing trendp < 0.00010.0× alphagold
Although the proportion of medication costs in outpatient medical costs immediately decreased 4.81 percentage points after the intervention, however it subsequently rose with an increasing trend of 0.28 percentage point per month ( p < 0.0001) (Table 2 ).
highly significantp < 0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
The apparent 10.2/7.6 mmHg difference between inpatients and outpatients was only slightly reduced to 8.0/5.1 mmHg after adjustment for baseline and remained highly significant (p < 0.0001/p < 0.0001) even after correction for cluster effects.
highly significantP < 0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
After adjusting for potential confounders (multivariable Poisson regression analysis), the positive correlation between WDD and FGPD remained highly significant, β:0.15(95%CI 0.13–0.16, P < 0.0001), Furthermore, the negative correlation between WDD and attaining tertiary education,β:0.05(95% CI:-0.095- -0.0005) remained significant after running a multivariable analysis (Table 2 ).
a significant trendp < 0.00010.0× alphagold
At the anterior end of the inflection point, there was no significant trend in current asthma risk with increasing log 1-Hydroxynaphthalene [0.90 (0.65, 1.25), p = 0.5418], whereas there was a significant trend in current asthma risk with increasing log 1-Hydroxynaphthalene at the posterior end of the inflection point [1.46 (1.27, 1.68), p < 0.0001].
marginally significantP < 0.0010.0× alphagold
When PIR was examined as a categorical variable, individuals in the highest PIR tertile exhibited a 0.1 lower TyG index compared to those in the lowest tertile in the crude model(β = -0.10, 95% CI:-0.13~-0.06, P < 0.001); Following adjustments in both Model 1 and 2, the association between PIR and TyG remained marginally significant (β =-0.17, 95% CI:-0.21~-0.13, P < 0.001 and β = -0.11, 95% CI:-0.15~-0.07, P < 0.001, respectively).
highly significantp < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
The intervention group demonstrated a highly significant improvement in their mean scores of MHL at the end of day three of the workshop (mean difference 19.08, 95% CI 17 to 21.16, Cohen’s d = 2.63; p < 0.001) and also in the second post intervention assessment after 3 months (mean difference 16.61, 95% CI 13.96 to 19.26, Cohen’s d = 1.86; p < 001) (Table 3 ).