Barely Significant
← all phrases

a numerical trend

427 sentences · 427 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

Over the 3 phases, there was a numerical trend towards a slightly better accuracy from 23.6% to 28.0%—which was also observed within the two subgroups (residents and oncologists)—which however lacked statistical significance in all subgroups (see table 2 ).
There was also a numerical trend evident for the three groups independently (Table 2 ) with 5.13% versus 2.38% for severe CRS (relative risk 1.679; 95% CI 0.947–2.583), 5.77% versus 4.28% for severe CRS and NT (relative risk 1.247; 95% CI 0.6874–2.004), and 9.62% versus 5.94% for severe NT (relative risk 1.428; 95% CI 0.9038–2.085) although not reaching statistical significance.
Regulatory Measures to Improve the Safety of CAR-T-Cell Treatment.
Transfus Med Hemother · 2023 · PMC10331154
8 In another phase 3 study ( NCT00337103 ), eribulin-treated patients did not have a significant improvement in OS as compared to patients treated with capecitabine in the first, second, or third line of chemotherapy in the metastatic setting, although a numerical trend favoring eribulin was demonstrated. 9 Interestingly, in a subsequent pooled analysis of both of these trials, eribulin was seen to have a significant improvement in OS, as compared to the control arm.
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 .
In female patients assigned to mGPS category 1 or 2, a numerical trend towards longer OS was also observed in Arm A compared to Arm B, however, with statistical testing not revealing a significant survival difference between treatment arms (24.6 versus 16.7 months; P = 0.15) ( Supplementary Table S1 , available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esmoop.2024.103374 , Figure 4 A and B).
This long-term, prospective, randomised, head-to-head trial demonstrated a numerical trend for increased risk of MACE and VTE (only the 10 mg dose), among other serious adverse events, for the JAK inhibitor tofacitinib compared with TNF inhibitor therapy in a population enriched for CV risk (patients who were aged ≥50 years with at least one CV risk factor). 16 The increased relative ris
15 Final OS results show a numerical trend favoring ipatasertib–paclitaxel (median OS 23.1 vs 18.4 months in ipatasertib vs placebo arm, stratified HR 0.62 [95% CI, 0.37-1.05]). 33 However, the Phase III IPATunity130 cohort A failed to show PFS benefit from the addition of ipatasertib to paclitaxel in patients with mTNBC harboring PIK3CA/AK
Nonetheless, those patients who had ≥12 months of PFS during prior palbociclib‐based therapy only had a numerical trend towards PFS improvement compared with those patients who had less than 12 months of PFS during prior palbociclib‐based therapy (median PFS: 7.0 vs. 5.0 months, log‐rank p = 0.931).