The intent-to-treat analysis including data from drop-outs revealed similar results, a main significant effect of Time (F [1, 42] = 51.0, p < 0.001, d = 2.20) and a significant interaction of Group × Time (F [1, 42] = 18.9, p < 0.001, d = 1.34).
Main significant analytical results in Table 1.
In subtotal analyses of main malignant type, no significant results were observed in digestive system cancers (random-effects model: pooled HR = 1.07; 95% CI: 0.65 1.76; P = 0.793), urogenital system cancers (random-effects model: pooled HR = 1.20; 95% CI: 0.35 4.20; P = 0.770), and respiratory system cancers subgroup (random-effects model: pooled HR = 1.35; 95% CI: 0.57 3.16; P = 0.496)).
Post hoc Tukey's honestly significant difference tests were used to further investigate significant results, and main and significant results are presented in the text.
The analysis yielded no significant results: For the main effect of P(O) and the interaction, both Fs were < 1; and the main effect of Goal did not reach the significance threshold, F 1, 73) = 2.67, p =.11, ηp =.03.
In the first experiment, CO2 reduced pain ratings only minimally by 5.3% compared to air if given alternatingly with significant results for the main factor GROUP (F1,47 = 4.438; p = 0.041) and the interaction term TIME*GROUP (F2.6,121.2 = 3.3; p = 0.029) in the repeated-measures ANOVA.
When the main effects or relevant interactions were significant, results of pairwise posthoc comparisons are reported in the text (except for posthoc results of the Word by Melody interaction, which are reported in Table 3).
The observed results could not confirm the significant results of the main analysis.
Furthermore, when the 10% of the participants with the highest exposure are taken into consideration the significant results of the main analysis could not be confirmed.
The main limitation was that studies with significant results considered only a proportion of the originally recruited children in their analysis.
