Sentence examples for comparator means from inspiring English sources

To illustrate the importance of accounting for interactions, we first focus on the test comparing GMO and comparator means.

Assuming that total costs of a biosimilar are lower than total costs of the comparator means that the point estimate for cost-effectiveness lies south of the horizontal axis in Figure 3.

The policy of including studies without a placebo comparator meant that 1.4 times more information was available.

On the one hand, dividing studies by type of presenting episode, by duration, and by comparator, meant limiting the number of patients in each group available for analysis.

The differences in sensitivity and specificity between the intervention and comparator meant that there were different proportions of true positives (TPs), false positives (FPs), true negatives (TNs), and false negatives (FNs) for the intervention and comparator groups.

The relative ratio of gene expression was calculated as follows: (1) Relative   ratio = (Etarget ) DCt   TARGET   (mean   comparator − mean   sample ) (Eref ) DCt   REF (mean   comparator ��� mean   sample ), where Etarget is the reaction efficiency of the gene of interest, Eref is the reaction efficiency of the reference gene and DCt is the cycle difference between the comparator and the sample.

From baseline to endpoint, heart rate changes were +0.5 ± 9.8 beats per minute (bpm) for exenatide and +0.1 ± 9.2 bpm for the pooled comparators (mean ± SD).

There was no statistical significant difference in fasting glucose at study end point between ILPS and comparators (mean difference of 2.05 mg/dL [95% CI −0.301 to 4.4], P = 0.087), with no significant heterogeneity (P = 0.116, I = 49%) (Table 1).

Across fifteen studies (n = 1922 participants), hypertonic saline, compared with any comparator, reduced mean LoS by approximately a third of a day using a fixed effect approach [mean difference = −0.36, 95 % CI −0.50 to −0.22 days; Fig.  3].

Using the SF-36 bodily pain score at 3-month follow-up as the endpoint and controlling for baseline SF-36 bodily pain and baseline PHQ-9 depression scores, results of ANCOVA show that the pain group continued to experience significantly worse pain after treatment for depression compared to the no pain comparator group (mean difference=14.57, 95% CI 9.73 to 19.40).

The baseline PHQ-9 depression scores indicate that the pain group reported higher levels of depression at baseline (mean PHQ-9=17.0, PHQ-9=17.0,n the no pain comparator group (mean PHQ-9=14.9, SD 5.2).