Sentence examples for differences in the trials from inspiring English sources

All these three factors may dilute any differences in the trials categorised as emotional or neutral retrieval, impairing our ability to detect those which may exist.

Although there were other differences in the trials (e.g., most, but not all, were double-blind; most used VKA as a comparator, AVERROES used aspirin), the similarities invite a brief comparison.

31 When the pooled results were significant, the number of patients needed to treat to benefit one (NNT) was calculated by pooling absolute-risk differences in the trials included in this meta-analysis.

This is most likely a consequence of the geographical differences in the trials and less likely the use of a non-standardized IHC cutoff point in SPECTRUM, as alternative cutoffs for positivity (between 10% and 70%) did not change the outcome in that study.

To assess the possibility of publication bias, we used the funnel plot test described by Egger et al. 31 When the pooled results were significant, the number of patients needed to treat to cause or to prevent one event was calculated by pooling absolute risk differences in the trials included in this meta-analysis.

When the pooled results were significant, the number of patients needed to treat or needed to harm (NNT or NNH, respectively) to cause or to prevent one event was calculated by pooling absolute risk differences in the trials that were included in this meta-analysis.

Thus, in the following analyses, no correction is applied to averaged data for the differences in the trial distribution for change and no-change trials.

Similarly, to evaluate whether the apparent but not significant differences in the trial-specific estimates reflect differences in the distribution of susceptibilities among the populations, larger sample size would be needed.

Additionally, the interpretation of the results is complicated by differences in the trial duration and in the cohort studied.

35, 41 These inherent differences in the trial populations, plus differences in the scales used to measure abdominal symptoms across the trials, prevent formal comparison of the phase 3 CIC and IBS-C trial results.

– The observed differences in the trial are very large whereas its sample size is very small and no formal sample size calculation had been made; this needs confirmation in a large trial.