Sentences with phrase «significant differences between treatments»

There were no significant differences between the treatments on the GDS or HRSD at the 2 - year follow - up; however, bibliotherapy participants had significantly more recurrences of depression during the follow - up period.

When they looked at bleeding side - effects, there were no statistically significant differences between the treatments.

There were also no significant differences between treatment groups in changes in 6 - minute walk distance.

The authors write that one explanation for lack of statistically significant differences between the treatment groups in all - type cancer incidence is that the study group had higher baseline vitamin D (serum 25 - hydroxyvitamin D) levels compared with the U.S. population.

There was no significant difference between treatments based on overall community and diversity metrics, or differential abundance of individual taxa.

The researchers also point out there were 1290 unique school and grade combinations in the study sample — an average of 40 students per combination — which meant it «lacked statistical power to find significant differences between treatment conditions or grade levels».

Overall, statistically significant differences between treatment and control students on the ELA test were not found.

Doses of drugs over the trial were converted to mean daily equivalents of chlorpromazine and compared across groups by means of Kruskal - Wallis one way analysis of variance; this indicated no significant differences between treatment groups (medians of daily drugs in chlorpromazine equivalents: cognitive behaviour therapy 425, supportive counselling 517.75, routine care 450; χ = 0.963; P = 3D0.62).

There were no clinically significant differences between treatment groups before the study.

The results of evaluations of programs designed to alter parents» cognitive representations have yielded many positive findings, but few have obtained significant differences between treatment and control on attachment classifications.

There was no significant difference between the treatments with respect to substance use or misdemeanor arrests.

Study 1 Suicidal Ideation King and colleagues (2009) found there was no significant difference between treatment and control conditions in self - reported suicidal ideation at the 12 - month follow - up.

Child's Depression There was no significant difference between treatment and control conditions in self - reported depression at the 12 - month follow - up.

However, there was a significant difference between the treatment and nontreatment groups.

The treatment group displayed a statistically significant reduction in hyperactivity; however, there were no statistically significant differences between the treatment and control groups on measures of conduct problems, peer problems, social — emotional competence, or disruptive behaviors.

Not exact matches

An important dividing line in the debate is whether one sees a significant moral difference between killing by euthanasia / PAS and allowing to die by withdrawing useless, cure - oriented, life - sustaining treatment.

Some modest but statistically significant differences emerged between the accelerated and conventional treatment arms in shorter - term bowel and urinary side effects.

The survival difference between the two groups was not statistically significant, but investigators said the results point to a possible benefit of GO treatment for some pediatric AML patients whose cancer remained following chemotherapy.

There was no significant increase in adverse events with any of the treatments over the control group, nor was there any difference in malaria incidence between groups during the one year period after the study treatment was stopped, suggesting that monthly administration of DP is a safe and effective treatment for reducing malaria among infants in regions with year - round transmission and high resistance to antifolates.

«In all three of these measures of treatment outcome we found significant differences between before - and after the switch to biological treatment, both at 3 - 5 months after the switch and also sustained over the entire observed timespan,» says Marcus Schmitt - Egenolf.

With regard to survival time, the differences between the two treatment groups were not statistically significant in favour of ruxolitinib in all of the four analysis dates.

For the subsequent three years, there was no longer a significant difference between the two groups in the number of patients who required surgical treatment for an SCC.

Professor Fagiolini said «We found fairly significant differences between those who received the active light treatment, and the controls.

There was no significant difference in functional independence at 3 months between the treatment groups.

There was no significant difference in costs between DBT and DM episodes within the diagnosis or cancer treatment windows.

Although both study groups showed a statistically significant decrease at six months compared with baseline -LRB--14.1 mmHg for renal denervation compared to -11.7 mmHg for the sham treatment control), the difference of -2.29 mmHg in office systolic blood pressure between the two arms was not significant.

The trial was designed with this anticipated attrition rate, and a sensitivity analysis confirmed that there were no significant differences in the risk profiles between patients who underwent the assigned surgical treatment and those who withdrew, Adams said.

While second - stage results showed no significant differences between participants continuing to receive weekly doses of the active drug, those receiving biweekly doses and those shifted to placebo, Kimball notes that, since it is typical for the severity of HS symptoms to increase and decrease and because the study protocol required treatment discontinuation for participants whose symptoms stopped responding to the drug, larger scale studies will be required to better define the ideal length and frequency of treatment.

In a report of the study's findings, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association on March 6, researchers compared professional pest management treatments plus education with education alone and found no significant differences in asthma symptoms or mouse allergen exposure between the two groups.

At end - of - treatment, Loomba and colleagues found no significant differences between sitagliptin and placebo across a range of measures.

Significant differences (two - way ANOVA) are indicated between (a) «light» and «dark» samples, (b) nutrient treatments and (c) the interaction of nutrient and light settings.

[35] The first randomized, controlled study of DBS for the treatment of TRD targeting the ventral capsule / ventral striatum area did not demonstrate a significant difference in response rates between the active and sham groups at the end of a 16 - week study.

One randomized trial found no significant difference between TMS and non-dominant unilateral ECT on performance on neuropsychological tests at 2 and at 4 weeks of treatment, although a small open - label trial reported a greater degree of memory difficulties with ECT than with TMS shortly after the treatment course.»

Effect of treatment, P < 0.0001; effect of time × treatment interaction, P < 0.0001 (both: repeated - measures ANOVA); all of the points differed significantly (P < 0.001) between treatments starting from the 6th hour (Tukey's honestly significant differences post hoc test).

No significant differences were observed between treatments.

There was no significant difference between the earnings of females in the treatment and control group.

No significant pretest differences were found between the treatment and control groups on CAT Total Reading or Total Language scores or on an index of reading awareness.

Use data from a randomized experiment to compare two treatments; use simulations to decide if differences between parameters are significant.

There are significant differences between tax treatment of ESOPs and RSUs.

Again, the results were similar — no significant difference between the two treatment groups - BUT because the treatment groups were NOT the same, the study, in fact, compared the proverbial «apple to the orange».

Our study was powered to detect significant differences in pregnancy rates in comparisons between the control group, clinic access, and either of the 2 treatment groups.

In no case was a significant difference observed between the treatment groups, or between those who dropped out before the 9 - year follow - up and those who did not drop out, on the baseline measures (see Supplemental Information).

The results of the treatment allocated analyses showed no statistically significant difference between intervention and control groups on any of the outcome measures.

Neither the one - or two - year data yielded any significant differences between families in the treatment and control groups.50 Early Start also examined CPS referrals and substantiated cases and found no differences for either measure between treatment and control families — 21 percent of control families had contact with CPS agencies, compared with 20 percent of program families.51

However, the slope difference between the treatment groups was not significant (Table 4).

Significant differences (p >.05) in characteristics between non-daily and daily smokers entering gambling treatment programs

Individually, small studies may not yield significant treatment differences between drug and placebo, but their aggregate results might point to effects that had gone undetected.

In the second study performed to evaluate tricyclic antidepressant amitriptyline, it was found that there were no significant differences between the control and measurement groups, so there was no evidence recorded that tricyclic antidepressant amitriptyline is effective to use in treatment for depression (Moldenhauer & Melnyk, 1999).

At 4 - to 6 - month followup, treatment gains were maintained in both treatment groups on four of seven outcome variables, but there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups.

While there was no statistically significant difference between the effectiveness of Sertraline alone and the combination proof Sertraline plus IPT, the additional treatment cost of providing IPT was offset by a lower utilization of other health and social services.