Barely Significant

Excerpts

514,629 sentences

highly significantP < 0·0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
This was highly significant ( P < 0·001) and was more effective for thin than for thick AKs ( P < 0·001), as has been noted with most other therapies, including PDT. 15 , 16 Our study included hyperkeratotic AKs and acral sites, both of which are associated with higher rates of treatment failure. 6 , 17 AKs larger than the microwave probe diameter were not excluded in this study.
a decreasing trendP < .0010.0× alphagold
The overall median completion rate was 60.1% (IQR, 37.9%-81.0%); this rate was slightly lower during home care vs inpatient stay (57.5% [IQR, 30.7%-85.9%] vs 65.0% [IQR, 49.6%-92.5%], respectively; P = .01), with a decreasing trend over time (65.6% [IQR, 51.6%-85.9%] for the first 90 days vs 42.9% [IQR, 29.3%-82.3%] for beyond 90 days; P < .001).
highly significantP <.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Findings of this study include a significant decrease of the patients’ pain sensation over time ( P =.006), a low but highly significant correlation between pain sensation and steps taken on the same day ( r =−0.11; P <.001) and the walking distance of the independently performed 6MWTs ( r =−0.39; P <.001).
highly significantP < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
The ROC curve analysis of the SFAI showed good accuracy (0.852, CI = 0.800–0.905) and was highly significant ( P < 0.001), with an optimal cutoff point of 17.5 and good sensitivity (80.10%) and specificity (74.36%).
highly significantP < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Further, 25(OH)D levels were previously determined in 100 randomly selected samples by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry with isotopic labelled internal standard, which showed a highly significant correlation between the 25(OH)D levels obtained by RIA and liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry ( r = 0.875; P < 0.001).
highly significantp ≤ 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Differences among SE profiles The results of the Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA between the clusters according to levels of SE showed that there were highly significant differences ( p ≤ 0.001) in all the variables studied (family, teachers and peer support, as well as in academic performance in mathematics and language), although with different effect sizes: family support factor [χ 2 (2) = 155.8, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.296]; teacher’s support factor [χ 2 (2) = 228.5, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.434]; peers [χ 2 (2) = 98.8, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.188]; academic performance in language [χ 2 (2) = 53.2, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.101]; and in mathematics [χ 2 (2) = 48.1, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.091].