Barely Significant
← all phrases

“showed a trend”

53,323 sentences · 53,323 papers · 65,371 search hits before verification

In the literature

showed a trendP = 0.061.2× alpha
In this small cohort, sensitivity to ACh in female arteries still showed a trend to be better than in male arteries (females: 27.6 nM [range: 17.2-144nM] vs males: 136 nM [range: 44.8-351 nM]; P = 0.06) ( Supplemental Figure 1B ), whereas E max and precontraction levels were similar between sexes ( Supplemental Figures 1C and 1D ).
showed a trendp = 0.061.2× alpha
Transfusion requirements for packed red cells were not different between the groups (ADR: 250 ± 322 ml; MIL: 204 ± 245 ml; CON: 87 ± 167 ml), whereas requirements for fresh frozen plasma showed a trend ( p = 0.06) for a higher use in the ADR and MIL groups (ADR: 107 ± 196 ml; MIL: 68 ± 161 ml; CON: 0 ± 0 ml).
showed a trendp = 0.0601.2× alpha
In contrast, monoclonal antibody users did not experience a statistical difference (HR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.76–1.05, p = 0.145), and notably, those using small molecule TKIs showed a trend toward increased risk with GLP1RA (HR: 1.23; 95% CI: 0.99–1.52, p = 0.060), although this was not statistically significant.
showed a trendp = 0.061.2× alpha
In the analysis of severe OITIGER in the full cohort, the revised protocol was associated with a significantly lower hazard ratio, consistent with both reduced and delayed risk (HR 0.44; 95% CI: 0.22–0.88; p = 0.02) (Figure 2B ), and AEC > 600/μL showed a trend toward increased risk (HR 1.76; 95% CI: 0.97–3.19; p = 0.06).
showed a trendp = .061.2× alpha
Additional SAMA treatment plus LABA treatment significantly improved the activity domain of SGRQ score (MD: −2.33, 95% CI: −4.15 to −.50, p = .01, I 2 = 0%) but only showed a trend of an increase in the impact domain (MD: −1.72, 95% CI: −3.49 to .06, p = .06, I 2 = 0%) and the symptom domain (MD: −3.37, 95% CI: −7.42 to .67, p = .10, I 2 = 65%).
showed a trendp = 0.061.2× alpha
In response to conventional vitamin D therapy, participants who remained vitamin D deficient showed a trend towards an increased LF:HF ( p = 0.06), an increase not observed in subjects who achieved vitamin D levels within the insufficient and sufficient ranges ( p < 0.001 vs. deficient vitamin D group) ( Appendix Table A1 , Figure 3 ).