“not significantly significant”

The hospitalization costs were higher in the control group (56608 Confoederatio Helvetica franc (CHF) versus 47600 CHF), but this difference was not significantly significant ( P = 0.429).

While the SBP and DBP were negatively associated with MDA in Groups 3 and 4, the difference was not significantly significant ( p > 0.5).

In this study, female gender was associated with SVR failure (OR: 3.20) but was not significantly significant (p=0.517), which may be due to the low sample size.

Analysis using a random-effects model in view of the heterogeneous results between the effect sizes (I 2 = 90%; P < 0.01) indicated that patients who underwent BKA had a slightly higher Oxford knee score than those who underwent TKA, although the difference was not significantly significant (MD = 1.06; 95% CI2.29, 4.41; P = 0.53; Fig. 2 C).

Whilst the difference in the specificity rate between the two evaluated methods was not significantly significant ( P = 0.548), the difference between sensitivity rates was significant ( P = 0.004), indicating that bleach sedimentation is more sensitive.

Individuals who remembered the date of their next visit to the ART center were more likely to be virally suppressed compared with those who did not remember the date; the difference, however, was not significantly significant (64% versus 55%, P = 0.55).

The reoperation rate at one year was lower in the CCS group at 6.3% (n = 2); however, this was not significantly significant (p = 0.588).

However, and notably, the subtle difference between the expression level of Slc14a1 in the hippocampus of the AD model rats and the control rats is not significantly significant ( p = 0.614) ( Fig 4B ).

The difference becomes slightly but not significantly significant with the subgroup B (p=0.66), reaching a statistical significance when comparing the group of non-elderly with the subgroup C (p<0.03).

The standard deviation of SVP variability for each individual varied from 0.2% to 3.7% with an overall average standard deviation of 2.6% for each participant that was not significantly significant (one-way analysis of variance; P = 0.68).

However, the difference between different stages in terms of survival rate was not significantly significant (stage I-II versus stage III; P = 0.74) [ 15 ].

Although there was a decrease is arthroplasty waste events between 2010 and 2011, the reduction was not significantly significant ( p = 0.87).

Similarly, dissolved oxygen had a negative effect on the detection of Campylobacter although the relationship is not significantly significant (p = 0.998, OR = 0, b = −22.78).

Tukey's post-hoc test revealed that 4 hour YM-1 followed by 4-OHT was significantly different from the 4-OHT 48 hours treatment (p<0.05), whereas both the 48 hour 10 μM YM-1 and the 4 hour 10 μM YM-1 followed by 95% EtOH treatments were not significantly significant from the 4-OHT 48 hour treatment ( Figure 4F ).

We had experienced four cases of mounting disruption out of 51 cases before the modification, and this disruption has shown an evident reduction with the modified technique (1 of 35 cases), though this difference was not significantly significant.

Among wastewater, WWTP influent had 1.7-fold greater total detected bacterial abundance than sewer water (3.4 E + 08 CFU/100 mL and 2.1 E + 08 CFU/100 mL, respectively), though this difference was not significantly significant.

The average value for the muscle activity of the latissimus dorsi increased, but the difference was not significantly significant, although there was a statistically significant increase in the maximum value (p<0.05).

However, a greater percentage of the higher-educated adults participate in formal organizations (43% vs 35%), though the difference is not significantly significant.

The coefficients on an exclusive health and safety committee ( Hscommittee1 dummy) are negative and statistically significant at the 5% level, whereas the coefficients on a joint committee ( Hscommittee2 dummy) are not significantly significant at the 5% level in all three models.

However, the results should be viewed with caution since the subgroup was not randomized, and in those patients with moderate to severe baseline ischemia the differences were not significantly significant after Cox risk adjustment was performed.

Although a slight decrease in the antibacterial efficacy was detected at 1 %, 3 % and 5% LEO, the changes were not significantly significant ( Figure 2 ). 2.4.

The “progression” group had higher rates of intravitreal injections to treat DR during pregnancy with 14.8% (4/27) receiving either Eylea or Avastin while 1 patient in the “non-progression” received injections, though this was not significantly significant.

The difference was not significantly significant due to the high variability of yield of the Dox.HCl-NBs.

However, the difference was not significantly significant (10% in the preoperative chemoradiotherapy group) [ 6 ].

The major bleeding was found to be 2.6% in the NOAC group and 3.5% in the warfarin group (LogOR: −0.22, 95% CI: −0.45, 0.01, P = 0.06), the differences was not significantly significant.