Barely Significant
← all phrases

“an obvious trend”

1,007 sentences · 1,007 papers · 3,200 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Sighted at

p=0.06

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

In the literature

an obvious trendp = 0.0891.8× alphagold
Mice in the probiotic group in this study were given intragastric gavage of probiotics seven days prior to the procedure of tumor transplantation (day −7), and a significant difference in tumor volume between the probiotic and model groups was only observed after 16 days of tumor transplantation, though a non-significant but an obvious trend of difference in tumor volume was already observed at day 14 ( p = 0.089).
an obvious trendP = 0.091.8× alphagold
In addition, there was an obvious trend of reduction in fluoroscopy time (WMD: –59.7; 95% CI: –128.64 to 9.3; P = 0.09) in studies with interventional coronary procedure, although no significance was reached, possibly due to the small sample sizes involved, and the heterogeneity between trials was absent (P = 0.264).
an obvious trendp = 0.1292.6× alphagold
For the KPI model, distinction in survival outcomes was observed between groups, but the severity of the prognostic risk was not consistent with the grading of the index stratification: group two had an obvious trend for longer PFS than group one ( p = 0.129), and no statistical survival differences were detected between group one and group four (PFS, p = 0.389; OS, p = 0.271) (Figure 2C,D ).
an obvious trendP = 0.132.6× alphagold
Bui et al ( 29 ) demonstrated survival improvement in patients diagnosed in the recent era compared to old era (The 1-year survival rate: 13.3% (1975–1998), 40.9% (1999–2004), 50% (2005–2010), and 59.7% (2011–2016), p -value = 0.0064), however, Yin et al ( 30 ) study did not show this survival advantages although there was an obvious trend ( P = 0.13).
an obvious trendp = 0.1973.9× alphagold
For those who received embryo transfer, we noticed an obvious trend that with the higher MeDiet score, the higher clinical pregnancy rate (62.37% vs. 76.09% vs. 81.25%, p = 0.197), implantation rate (55.84% vs. 66.44% vs. 69.23%, p = 0.240) and ongoing pregnancy rate (61.22% vs. 75.00% vs. 81.25%, p = 0.152) even though the p values are not significant.