Barely Significant
← all phrases

“a nonsignificant trend”

5,407 sentences · 5,407 papers · 7,516 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Sighted at

p<0.1

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

In the literature

a nonsignificant trendp = 0.0531.1× alphagold
A nonsignificant trend toward an increased short-term (2.0% vs. 1.2%, RR: 1.66, 95% CI: 0.99–2.78, p = 0.053) and long-term (4.7% vs. 3.5%, incident rate ratio: 1.40, 95% CI: 0.97–2.03, p = 0.07) all-cause mortality was also found, while no differences were found in long-term (1-year) mortality neither in short- or long-term follow-up for MI, repeat revascularization, stent thrombosis, stroke, major bleeding and the composite of MACEs [ 59 ].
a nonsignificant trendP = 0.0531.1× alphagold
Mood and satiety As shown in Table 3 , there were no main effects of condition for any mood or satiety outcomes; however, there were significant condition∗time interactions for hunger [F (7,50) = 2.36, P < 0.05) and a nonsignificant trend for sleepiness [F (7,50) = 2.5, P = 0.053] indicating differences between the conditions on these measures at specific timepoints during the day.
a nonsignificant trendP = 0.0541.1× alphagold
In contrast, there was a significant additive interaction between SE positivity and ever smoking in the VARA registry, accounting for more than 50% of the overall risk of ACPA positivity in SE -positive smokers (AP, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.85; P < 0.001); there was also a nonsignificant trend to suggest multiplicative interaction ( P = 0.054).
a nonsignificant trendP =0.0541.1× alphagold
All‐cause hospitalization rates were nonsignificantly lower in the CRT‐D group as opposed to the ICD group (0.46 per 100 days versus 0.59 per 100 days, P =0.06), while censoring at 1 year of follow‐up, there was a nonsignificant trend toward higher mortality in the CRT‐D group versus the ICD group (23% versus 15%, P =0.054).
a nonsignificant trendP = 0.0541.1× alphagold
For male rats in the 10 sec condition, a two-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed no significant main effect of recent versus remote test ( F (1,8) = 0.12, P = 0.74), a nonsignificant trend toward a main effect of context ( F (1,8) = 5.11, P = 0.054), and no significant interaction ( F (1,8) = 0.84, P = 0.39).