Barely Significant

Excerpts

5,102 sentences · 1 filter applied

highly significantp < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
First, the sample size was relatively small (16 patients), although the results were highly significant ( p < 0.001) for nearly all comparisons, with medium-to-large effect sizes (Cohen’s d 0.5–1.20), suggesting that the statistical power was likely sufficient.
highly significantp < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Highly significant differences in surgical technique also occurred between groups derived from the Paprosky classification ( p < 0.001): 97.3% of all patients grouped in IIIa received surgery performed with “transfemoral cementless fixation”, whereas almost all patients with classifications of IIIB and IV received surgery with “transfemoral cementless fixation + distal locking” (except one patient IIIB who received “transfemoral cementless fixation”).
highly significantp < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
In separate sensitivity models that combined age and GDS with one alternative geriatric instrument, depressive symptoms remained a strong and highly significant independent correlate of FACT-Cog (GDS standardized β between −0.44 and −0.57, all p < 0.001; Appendix A , Table A2 ).
highly significantp = 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Among the evaluated covariates, baseline sagittal jaw relationship (ANB) emerged as a highly significant independent predictor (beta = 0.36, 95%CI: 0.151 to 0.573, p = 0.001), indicating that patients presenting with more severe initial sagittal discrepancies experienced a greater magnitude of forward maxillary change.
Although differences in mobility, self-care, and usual activities did not reach statistical significance, the EQ-5D index score was markedly lower in the MD cohort than in the controls (median 0.66 [IQR 0.45–0.94] vs. 1.00 [IQR 0.69–1.00]; p < 0.001, Mann–Whitney U test), indicating a substantial reduction in overall health utility associated with MD. 3.3.
highly significantp < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Subsequently, the prognostic relevance of the three XBETA-based risk categories was assessed using Kaplan–Meier survival curves, which demonstrated a highly significant separation between groups (log-rank χ 2 = 102.441; p < 0.001) ( Figure 4 ).