The proportion of baseline comparisons with minimal-to-small differences (-0.49 SD to 0.49 SD) ranged from 44% (General Health) to 81% (Role Physical, Role Emotional).
An improvement of the same order of magnitude was defined as a minimal-to-small effect size (range -0.49 to 0.49).
Median effect sizes ranged from -0.05 (Role Emotional) to 0.27 (Physical Component Summary), while the proportion of outcome comparisons with minimal-to-small differences (-0.49 to +0.49) ranged from 67% (Bodily Pain) to 93% (Role Emotional).
The proportion of comparisons showing improvements in A- and C-cohorts of the same order of magnitude (minimal-to-small effect sizes, range -0.49 to 0.49) was 80.1% (414 of 517 comparisons).
The combination of SA1 + SA2 + SA3 + SA4 yielded only 5 evaluable cohorts with 16 comparisons, while results differed little from the main analysis (median effect size 0.07; minimal-to-small differences in 94% of comparisons).
Outcome comparisons in effect sizes (Table 6) showed very little variation: the median effect size (0.11 for all comparisons) ranged from 0.05 (asthma) to 0.17 (depression), while the proportion of comparisons with minimal-to-small differences (-0.49 to +0.49; 80% for all comparisons) ranged from 77% (depression and low back pain) to 85% (migraine).
In SA3, study settings of C-cohorts were restricted to primary care or health maintenance organizations, whereby the median effect size was increased from 0.11 to 0.24, while the proportion of comparisons with minimal-to-small differences was increased to 88%.
SA1, SA2 and SA4 had very small effects on the outcome differences: in each analysis the median effect size was reduced from 0.11 to 0.08, while the proportion comparisons with minimal-to-small differences (-0.49 to +0.49 SD; 80% for all comparisons) ranged from 83%to88%83%to88%
More than 500 comparisons of ten different SF-36 scales showed improvements largely of the same order of magnitude in corresponding A- and C-cohorts (minimal-to-small differences in 80% of the comparisons); with medium-to-large differences favouring A- and C-groups in 14% and 7% of the comparisons, respectively.
Results suggested that demand shocks driven by consumer panic is the largest factor in reduction of poultry production, but the overall economic effect is likely to be minimal due to small size of the poultry sector and weak inter-sector linkages.
Although a small volume required low-pressure air to receive faster response, the difference between the maximum and minimum volumes during contraction was relatively minimal at small volumes compared with those at the large initial muscle volume.
