For example, Tio Candido N had significantly higher size-adjusted crushing resistance than Tio Candido S (90.0 and 51.8, respectively; F = 20.82, df = 1, 58, p < 0.001).
The number of pulses and the call amplitude were significantly higher for size class 3 than for size classes 4 and 5 (F2,17 = 33.93, p < 0.001; F2,17 = 322.69, p < 0.001 respectively; Table 1; Figure 1).
Given the large number of patients who qualified for the study, in the end we studied 134 statin non-users and 31 statin users for a total sample size of 165, which is a significantly higher sample size than originally estimated (ie, N=165 vs 122).
FB containing combined DEET/OBZ produced significantly higher droplet size by 12% or by 67% when compared to FB containing DEET or OBZ, respectively.
Interventions containing group components (k = 4, d + = 0.49) had a significantly higher effect size than one-to-one-only interventions (k = 12, d + = 0.26), Q b = 49.77, p < .001.001
Within the suture retrievers, the straight instruments showed a slightly, but not significantly higher lesion size than the angled instruments (5.1 ± 0.9 versus 4.9 ± 1.4 mm, p > 0.05).
Animals with an event at the same date as another animal belonged to herds with a significantly higher herd size (p < 0.001, using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, data not shown).
In the breast or axilla, the risk of recurrence on univariate analysis was significantly higher as size increased, for node positive compared to node negative tumours, for histological prognostic group (RHR for groups: good=1 (baseline); moderate=2.55.
Whereas levels of insulin resistance did not differ across the tertiles (P = 0.47), adiponectin was significantly higher (effect size 0.52 SD, P < 0.01) in the least active group compared with the middle and most active groups who had adiponectin levels similar to each other (effect size 0.02 SD, P = 0.96).
Results of this moderator analysis indicated that retroactive ratings of homework compliance (e.g., a single rating of compliance provided at the end of treatment) demonstrated a significantly higher effect size than contemporaneous ratings (e.g., ratings made after each therapy session; Q = 11.90, df = 1, P < .001).001
However, uncontrolled field studies had significantly higher effect sizes, probably due to all cases in this category originating from studies to understand the effect of a non-native predator on prey.
