Barely Significant
← all phrases

“a numerical trend”

1,013 sentences · 1,013 papers · 1,817 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Sighted at

p=0.09

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

In the literature

Although statistically significant prognostic comparisons were limited by the small sample size in our internal cohort and MYC status was only evaluable at the time of recurrence, there did appear to be a numerical trend towards worse median survival with MYC amplification, as well as higher rates of recurrence, despite the majority of patients ultimately receiving immunotherapy in addition to chemoradiotherapy, conforming with previous observations 36 .
Furthermore, there was a numerical trend toward lower hospitalization rates in the prevaccination era (23/139, 16.6%) compared with unvaccinated patients during the Delta wave (6/20, 30.0%; OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.16-1.36; P = 0.145), suggesting similar transmissibility but higher pathogenicity of the Delta VOC compared with earlier phases of the pandemic.
There was a numerical trend suggesting a possible shift in breathing route from oronasal to nasal during both phases of the study (Table 3 ); however, statistical analysis of the data from the active phase by both Wilcoxon test ( P = 0.359) and two-sample t test ( P = 0.559) showed that this trend did not reach statistical significance.
While increases in the humoral response did not differ statistically between participants who withheld their medication and those who did not in both the MMF/MPA ( P = 0.79) and MTX cohorts ( P = 0.16), there was a numerical trend toward higher geometric mean concentrations in participants who withheld therapy ( Supplemental Table 2 ).
However, at sensitivity analysis excluding those two studies from our analysis, results showed to be consistent with the absence of any significant difference between the two groups, even though a numerical trend emerged in favor of immediate (single-stage) complete revascularization for the composite endpoint of all cause death, repeat revascularization and MI ( Supplementary Fig. 9 ).
Post-hoc pairwise comparisons (Table 4b in the S1 File ) showed that the bilinguals were significantly slower than the monolinguals when they responded ‘correct’ (p = 0.002), marginally but not significantly slower when they responded ‘wrong’ (p = 0.07), and with a numerical trend in the predicted direction, but no significant difference when they responded ‘neither’ (p = 0.68).