Sentences with phrase «for subgroup differences»

For cessation of exclusive breastfeeding at up to six months the treatment effect appears to be greater when the intervention was delivered by non-professionals (lay support) compared with professionals or mixed support (test for subgroup differences: Chi ² = 7.74, df = 2 (P = 0.02), I ² = 73.1 %; Analysis 2.2).

For cessation of exclusive breastfeeding at up to six months face - to - face interventions may be associated with greater effects than other types of support; however, very high within - group heterogeneity remains in the analysis, and we advise caution when interpreting this result (test for subgroup differences: Chi ² = 37.55, df = 2 (P <.00001, I ² = 94.7 %; Analysis 3.2).

However, within - group heterogeneity remains very high in all subgroups, and we advise caution when interpreting this result (test for subgroup differences: Chi ² = 7.62, df = 3 (P = 0.05), I ² = 60.6 %; Analysis 6.4).

For cessation of any breastfeeding at up to six months, there is no evidence of a difference in the effectiveness of the intervention according to the background breastfeeding rate (test for subgroup differences: Chi ² = 0.56, df = 2 (P = 0.76), I ² = 0 %; Analysis 5.1).

For cessation of exclusive breastfeeding by four to six weeks the test for subgroup differences indicates a possible differential treatment effect (test for subgroup differences: Chi ² = 7.12, df = 2 (P = 0.03), I ² = 71.9 %).

The confidence intervals for this subgroup do not overlap with any other subgroup, but within - group heterogeneity for all subgroups remains very high, and we advise caution when interpreting this result (Analysis 6.2; test for subgroup differences: Chi ² = 13.78, df = 3 (P = 0.003), I ² = 78.2 %).

For cessation of any breastfeeding at up to six months there was no evidence of a differential effect according to type of support (test for subgroup differences: Chi ² = 0.40, df = 2 (P = 0.82), I ² = 0 %; Analysis 3.1).

There were borderline differences between subgroups for the outcome of regional analgesia (Test for subgroup differences: (P = 0.10), I ² = 63.4 %).

We noted no evidence for subgroup differences for the any breastfeeding outcomes.

Not exact matches

For example, a correlational study of two American subgroups — one from La Leche League and one control group — found that frequent feedings reduced crying in babies who were two months old but did not make a difference for four - month - old babiFor example, a correlational study of two American subgroups — one from La Leche League and one control group — found that frequent feedings reduced crying in babies who were two months old but did not make a difference for four - month - old babifor four - month - old babies.

intact perineum (average RR 1.04, 95 % CI 0.95 to 1.13; participants = 13,186; studies = 10; high quality evidence)(Analysis 1.5); there was moderate heterogeneity for this outcome (Heterogeneity: Tau ² = 0.01; I ² = 54 %), and this could not be attributed to differences in the pre-specified subgroups (see below and Analysis 2.5 and Analysis 3.5).

There were no significant subgroup differences found for either preterm birth or overall fetal loss, or for any outcome.

intact perineum (average RR 1.04, 95 % CI 0.95 to 1.13; participants = 13,186; studies = 10)(Analysis 1.5); There was moderate heterogeneity for this outcome (Heterogeneity: Tau ² = 0.01; I ² = 54 %), and this could not be attributed to differences in the prespecified subgroups (see below and Analysis 2.5 and Analysis 3.5).

On the whole, there was no evidence of a difference between the caseload and team subgroups for any of the outcomes included in the subgroup analysis.

On the whole, there was no evidence of a difference between the caseload and team subgroups for any of the outcomes included in the subgroup analysis, which included caesarean section, instrumental vaginal birth, spontaneous vaginal birth, intact perineum, preterm birth < 37 weeks and all fetal loss before and after 24 weeks plus neonatal death.

Key findings were examined for statistically significant differences among SFA subgroups based on size, community type, region, and poverty level.

There was no evidence of a difference between the caseload and team subgroups for any of the outcomes included in the subgroup analysis.

Differences between the average treatment effects for the subgroups were generally small.

The researchers identified several hundred differences in methylation associated with either Mexican or Puerto Rican ethnicity, but discovered that only three - quarters of the epigenetic difference between the two ethnic subgroups could be accounted for by differences in the children's genetic ancestry.

These models are used to estimate impacts on the separate components of the subgroups (e.g., impacts on minority and non-minority students separately) and test for the difference in impacts between the two groups.

Because differences in the responses of parents and nonparents are negligible, we do not present the findings for these two subgroups.

There were, however, significant interaction effects indicating differences between some subgroups of intervention and comparison mothers in provision of appropriate play materials, organisation of the physical and temporal environments, and provision of opportunities for variety in daily stimulation (table 2).

The pattern of results across the four models is broadly consistent although there are differences in significance across age groups, potentially due to lower power for the smaller subgroup samples.

The only difference was that different correlations were obtained for subgroups of FBG.

Subgroup analyses showed significant differences for continent of residence and depression severity (ie, depressive symptoms or a clinical diagnosis depression).

Some evidence was found for differences in vocabulary among different Hispanic subgroups.

With respect to negative parenting, Healthy Families mothers in the High Prevention Opportunity subgroup were less likely than their counterparts in the control group to use harsh parenting, while no differences were detected for the Limited Prevention Opportunity subgroup.

With respect to negative parenting, Healthy Families NY mothers in the High Prevention Opportunity subgroup were less likely than their counterparts in the control group to use harsh parenting, while no differences were detected for the Limited Prevention Opportunity subgroup.

The nature of significant interaction effects was determined by examining the main effects of sample status separately for the different levels of the moderator in GLM analyses of covariance, to statistically test the sample differences within the subgroups.

Given these behavioral sex differences, it seems plausible to find different subgroups for boys and girls.

No differences between these subgroups were found for any emotion (see Fig. 3b).

Sample descriptive for all variables in the total sample and in the DBD − and DBD + subgroups and their differences using t tests