Barely Significant
← all phrases

a numerical trend

228 sentences · 228 papers · 1,651 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Sighted at

p=0.09

Listed by Hankins (2013) · Otte et al. (2022)

In the literature

a numerical trendP = .204.0× alphagold
31 There was also a numerical trend toward a reduced incidence of TLR with DCB (3.4% vs 10.3%; P = .20), but the difference was not statistically significant owing to the limited statistical power. 31 More recently, in the BASKET-SMALL 2 (Basel Kosten Effektivitäts Trial-DCBs versus Drug-eluting Stents in Small Vessel Interventions 2
Coronary Drug-Coated Balloons for De Novo and In-Stent Restenosis Indications.
J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv · 2023 · PMC11308150
a numerical trendp = 0.377.4× alphagold
Similar to the results of the overall cohort, the allogeneic HCT subgroup demonstrated no difference in composite bleeding events or VTE events between the pre-VPP and post-VPP groups, though there was a numerical trend towards more bleeding events (18 (21.4%) vs. 24 (27.3%), p = 0.37) and less VTE events in the post-VPP group (8 (9.5%) vs. 4 (4.5%), p = 0.24) (Tables S 1 , S 2 ).
a numerical trendP = 0.509510.2× alphagold
In the analysis which accounted for all these four prognostic factors, there was a numerical trend in favor of rIX-FP compared to rFIXFc for total ABR (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.32, 1.75; P = 0.5095) and AjBR (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.37, 1.82; P = 0.6178), and AsBR (RR 0.42; 95% CI 0.22, 0.82; P = 0.0107) was significantly lower in subjects treated with rIX-FP versus rFIXFc (Table 3 ).
While the exploratory analyses were not statistically significant, there was a numerical trend for an impact of ONCOS-102 on survival in chemotherapy-naïve patients (n=17): 30-month OS rate was 34.1% vs 0%, median OS was 20.3 vs 13.5 months ( figure 3C ), and median PFS: 8.9 vs 7.6 months ( figure 3D ) in the ONCOS-102 versus chemotherapy-alone cohorts.
After achieving an initial clinical response, similar proportions of patients randomized to either therapy maintained their week 26 CDAI and DAS28(CRP) responses during 6-month follow-up, with a numerical trend favouring initial upadacitinib treatment across most disease activity measures ( Fig. 6 ).