Sentences with phrase «randomization between»

Furthermore, there were no significant differences in any the study variables measured just before randomization between the two study groups.

Not exact matches

There were no significant differences between the 12 test groups in the proportions of main vs. joint household grocery purchasing responsibility (F11, 789 = 1.5, p > 0.05), gender (F11, 789 = 0.6, p > 0.05), age group (F11, 789 = 0.5, p > 0.05), education level (F11, 789 = 1.0, p > 0.05) or household income (F11, 789 = 0.9, p > 0.05), indicating that randomization to test groups was successful.

The change between the hemoglobin level at randomization and the hemoglobin level after 6 weeks postpartum

There were no differences between groups in the gestational age at randomization, time to uterine quiescence, time on study drug, length of hospitalization, days from randomization to delivery, incidence of side effects, or admissions to the neonatal intensive care unit.

Reporting for randomization, for instance, tripled between 1992 and 2011, from 14 % to 42 %; reporting for blinded assessment and conflicts of interest also rose sharply.

For one thing, the successful use of conjoint analysis in politics, he thinks, depends on the randomization of the characteristics presented to survey respondents, as a way of decoupling the connections voters tend to make between certain characteristics.

Our study had several limitations: small sample size, lack of randomization, and differences in numbers between groups.

Through Mendelian randomization analysis — a method that uses a person's genetic background to assess causal relationships between correlated variables — Nowak et al. discovered evidence that insulin resistance reduced circulating levels of the monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs) oleate and palmitoleate.

272/5: 45 Inferring causal relationships between gene expression and complex traits using Mendelian randomization (MR).

Design, setting, and participants: Mendelian randomization analyses evaluating the association between CETP and HMGCR scores, changes in lipid and lipoprotein levels, and the risk of cardiovascular events involving 102837 participants from 14 cohort or case - control studies conducted in North America or the United Kingdom between 1948 and 2012.

For the same reason that flipping a coin 100 times would probably result in about 50 percent heads, randomization would probably ensure comparability between the 50 lotteried - in and 50 lotteried - out kindergarteners.

The authors assess how different covariates contribute to improving the statistical power of a randomization design and examine differences between math and reading tests; differences between test types (curriculum - referenced tests versus norm - referenced tests); and differences between elementary school and secondary school, to see if the test subject, test type, or grade level makes a large difference in the crucial design parameters.

This matching method has been shown to be superior to simple and stratified randomization in producing balance for separate prognostic variables, particularly when the number of strata is large compared with the number of subjects.36 Based on 0.8 power to detect significant differences between conditions (P =.05, 1 - sided), this procedure was used to randomize 101 subjects to DBT (n = 52) or to CTBE (n = 49).

Design, Setting, and Participants Prospective controlled clinical trial enrolling participants between September 1996 and November 1998 at 6 randomization and 9 quasi-experimental sites across the United States.

In contrast, Healthy Steps for Young Children (HS) is a universal, practice - based intervention that enhances the delivery of behavioral and developmental services and relies on partnerships between developmental specialists and families.2, 3 The national evaluation was a 3 - year, prospective, controlled trial with 6 randomization and 9 quasi-experimental pediatric sites.

The quasi-experimental design reduces spillover effects but does not eliminate the possibility of selection bias.41, 42 The use of prospectively identified control subjects was intended to minimize discrepancies in outcomes between the 2 designs.43 For some outcomes, as noted previously, the magnitude and direction of outcomes for intervention and control families at randomization and quasi-experimental sites were comparable, although they were statistically significant only at quasi-experimental sites and in the larger pooled sample.

The quasi-experimental design reduces spillover effects and makes it easier to implement the program, but does not eliminate the possibility of selection bias.35, 36 The use of prospectively defined controls at quasi-experimental sites likely contributed to minimized discrepancies in outcomes between randomization and quasi-experimental groups.37 For several parenting outcomes, such as discipline practices, findings were of similar magnitude and direction at randomization and quasi-experimental sites, but statistically significant at only quasi-experimental sites, where the sample size was larger; they were significant in the pooled sample, as well.

Limitations include small sample size, issues with the randomization of participants that resulted in differences between the groups at baseline, reliance on self - reported measures as reduction in symptoms were significant for adolescent reports but not for parent report, and generalizability due to the primarily female participant gender.

Despite extensive comparisons, there was no evidence of systematic differences between these groups, suggesting that losses to follow - up did not have an adverse effect on study randomization.

Limitations include a lack of randomization, no information provided on the differences between the intervention and control groups, and lack of matching between intervention and control group..

Furthermore, studies that have incorporated a genetic approach to the understanding of the association between maternal alcohol use in the antenatal period and offspring outcomes, using a Mendelian Randomization (MR) design, have on the whole demonstrated adverse associations of moderate maternal drinking in pregnancy and offspring outcomes [5,9,59].

An intention to treat design revealed that randomization to the Family Check - Up increased duration of positive engagement between caregivers and children by age 3, which in turn was prognostic of less neglect of the child at age 4, controlling for family adversity.