Barely Significant
← all phrases

“just failed to reach significance”

280 sentences · 280 papers · 325 search hits before verification

In the literature

ER of the PPT was not found to be statistically significant within logistic regression modelling but just failed to reach significance within the bivariate model (OR 2.732; 95% CI 0.063–33.546, p = 0.06) which may suggest a level of association with KOA classification, although wide confidence intervals as a consequence of small group sample sizes must be acknowledged.
Clinician ratings were significantly greater than child ratings (Q = 9.5 [ df = 1], p = 0.002) and just failed to reach significance when compared to parental ratings (Q = 3.59 [ df = 1], p = 0.06); while child and parental ratings did not significantly differ (Q = 2.12 [ df = 1], p = 0.15).
A Friedman’s Test indicated that the items regarding uses of successfully spotting were rated differently in P3, χ 2 (9, N = 23) = 26.80, p < 0.01, whereas items referring to reasons and characteristics of successfully spotting in P1 and P2 just failed to reach significance [P1: χ 2 (6, N = 23) = 12.02, p = 0.06; P2: χ 2 (8, N = 23) = 15.24, p = 0.06].
When all patients were analysed, there was significant prolongation of relapse-free survival in patients with ER positive (RI = 44%; OR = 28%) and ER negative tumours (RI = 47%; OR = 37%) (Table II). There was a highly significant prolongation of relapse-free survival in patients with PR positive tumours (RI = 68%; OR= 41%; X2i= 7.8; P =0.005); the effect in patients with PR negative tumours just failed to reach significance, (RI = 68%; OR = 32% X21 = 3.4; P = 0.06), but the numbers in this group were smaller.
Although the valence of the BACKWARD CS+ after training valence did not differ significantly from the CONTROL CS+ valence after training ( t 65 = 0.54, p = 0.590), we note that both the FORWARD CS+ apparently acquired negative valence (FORWARD: t 33 = −4.65, p = 0) and that the BACKWARD CS+ also acquired negative valence, which just failed to reach significance (BACKWARD: t 32 = −1.95, p = 0.060); no such trend was seen for the CONTROL CS+ ( t 33 = −1.4, p = 0.172).
In contrast, lixisenatide (ELIXA study) had a neutral effect on CV outcomes [ 44 ], whereas the EXSCEL study assessing the once-weekly exenatide preparation just failed to reach significance for CV benefit with a 9% reduction in events (CI 0.83–1.00; p = 0.06) although a significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality was observed (Table 3 ) [ 45 ].