But in the same study, highly significant statistical difference (p-value < 0.01) in the outcome seen between groups contradicts the current research findings where the results do not have any significant difference.
Excerpts
There was a highly significant difference seen for the intergroup comparison of post-PI (p < 0.01) and post-GI (p < 0.01) with the least mean in group 3.
Table 2 shows that a highly significant F value of 413.90 (p < 0.01) was obtained from the ANOVA, suggesting significant variations in fracture resistance among the four groups.
Moreover, SI had a moderately significant positive association with BI (r = 0.54, P < 0.01).
There was also a moderately significant negative correlation between the NIHSS and GCS scores (-0.503, p < 0.01) (Table 4 ).
When studied in terms of its relationship with the other two scoring systems, i.e., the GCS and the NIHSS, the FOUR score was found to have a slightly significant positive correlation with the GCS score (0.329, p < 0.01) and not to have a significant correlation with the NIHSS score (-0.179, p > 0.05).
Spearman’s correlation coefficient found a highly significant inverse relationship between plasma IL-10 levels and platelet count after 24 hours (p = 0.01).
Furthermore, it shows a highly significant positive association between the participants' occupation, their level of education, and their level of knowledge (P=0.01).
Specifically, significant differences were observed at 0-30 and 0-120 min (p < 0.05), while differences at 0-60 and 0-90 min were highly significant (p < 0.01).
On statistical analysis, the association of the mean nuclear profile of OL and OSCC was found to be highly significant when compared to the control group (P value <0.01).
Between sessions one and three, all of the three techniques showed a decreasing trend of SpO 2 scores, with the exception of the pharmacological management of ADHD children (p<0.01) indicating that the uncontrollable ADHD children feel less anxious than in the other two approaches.
This difference is statistically highly significant (p < 0.01) (Table 3 ).
Respondents aged 25 to 35 years (41.01%) were commonly reported to have DH, the age distribution of which was found to be highly significant statistically ( P < 0.01).
The Mann-Whitney U test was utilized to appraise the difference in frequency of file size increase after flaring between the groups, which indicates a statistically highly significant difference (p=0.01) between groups 2, 3, and 4, as shown in Table 4 .
There was a statistically highly significant difference seen (p<0.01) for Ra B within the acrylic-based soft liner (I) and silicone-based soft liner (II) groups, with higher values in the acrylic-based soft liner (I) group; the surface roughness after brushing (Ra A) between the acrylic-based soft liner (I) and silicone-based soft liner (II) groups, with higher values in the acrylic-based soft liner (I) group; and the average surface roughness (Rz) diff between the acrylic-based soft liner (I) and silicone-based soft liner (II) groups, with higher values in the acrylic-based soft liner (I) group.
However, correlation analysis revealed only a weakly significant association between KL grade and ESR (ρ = 0.241, p = 0.010), while other markers showed no significant correlation.
When comparing fellow eye dVD to the RRD dVD, the analysis revealed a significant difference in the macula-on subgroup (p = 0.01) and a highly significant difference in the macula-off subgroup (p < 0.01).
In the KCCQ histogram (right), Group 1 generally has higher quality of life scores, with many patients scoring 65-80, whereas Group 2’s scores are shifted toward lower ranges (50-65); this difference is highly significant (p < 0.01), highlighting poorer perceived health status in Group 2.
Statistical significance was considered at P < 0.05, while results were regarded as highly significant at P < 0.01 and not significant at P > 0.05.
For cognitive function, MMSE scores showed a highly significant difference (F (3,296) = 16.553, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.144), reflecting a large effect size.
There was a statistically highly significant difference seen between the S-ALP values between the test and control group (p<0.01) with higher values in the test group (Table 1 ).
P-value: 0.05<P<0.10 was taken as suggestive significant, P-value: 0.01<P<0.05 as moderately significant, and P-value: P<0.01 as strongly significant.
The coping mean score during the post-test was 30.3 in the control group and 35.03 in the study group, and the calculated p-value of 0.000 which was highly significant at p < 0.01.
The PI values between the groups also showed highly significant improvement only in Group IIA, wherein the PI values decreased from baseline (0.6667) to 12 weeks (0.3333) (p < 0.01) (Table 1 ).
A significant level was measured at p≤0.05 and highly significant at p≤0.01.