ライフサイエンスコーパス: risk difference

1 y was a lower confidence limit of 5% for the risk difference.

2 ppression in 96.5% of patients in both arms (risk difference 0.0%; 95% CI -5.6% to 5.5%).

3 ps (two [0.7%] vs one [0.3%] cases; absolute risk difference 0.3%, 95% CI -0.8 to 1.5; p=0.566) and n

4 ankin Scale scores of 0-2 (adjusted absolute risk difference 0.6% [90% upper confidence bound 6.8%]).

5 among 263 children; 2.49 episodes per child; risk difference -0.49 [95% CI -0.79 to -0.21], p=0.0009,

6 tween early and delayed placement protocols (risk difference = -0.008; 95% CI = -0.044, 0.028; P = 0.

7 the early and immediate placement protocols (risk difference = -0.018; 95% confidence interval [CI] =

8 56 (29.1%) in the usual-care group (adjusted risk difference, 0.0 percentage points; 95% confidence i

9 (19.3%) in the 0.25 mg/kg group (unadjusted risk difference, 0.0% [95% CI, -8.9% to -8.9%]; adjusted

10 intervention vs 27.3% with placebo; adjusted risk difference, 0.03; 95% CI, -0.1 to 0.2; P = .58) or

11 F-AES were clinically noninferior to PP-ZES (risk difference, 0.5%; upper limit 1-sided 95% confidenc

12 ference for ventilator-associated pneumonia (risk difference, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.70-0.88).

13 ratio, 1.05 [95% CI, 1.00 to 1.10]; absolute risk difference, 0.93 percentage points [95% CI, -0.01 t

14 spirin caused more severe bleeding (absolute risk difference, 0.97% [95% CI, 0.23-1.70]) and fewer se

15 tes (31.8% in both groups; adjusted absolute risk difference, -0.04% [95% CI, -4.80% to 4.71%]; adjus

16 ion (RR, 0.83 [95% CrI, 0.68-0.99]; absolute risk difference, -0.06 [95% CrI, -0.15 to -0.01]; modera

17 gen (RR, 0.76 [95% CrI, 0.55-0.99]; absolute risk difference, -0.11 [95% CrI, -0.27 to -0.01]; modera

18 ion (RR, 0.76 [95% CrI, 0.62-0.90]; absolute risk difference, -0.12 [95% CrI, -0.25 to -0.05]; modera

19 severe ischemic events was similar (absolute risk difference, -0.17% [95% CI, -1.33 to 0.98]).

20 ion (RR, 0.40 [95% CrI, 0.24-0.63]; absolute risk difference, -0.19 [95% CrI, -0.37 to -0.09]; low ce

21 16 of 430 patients (3.7%) in the FFR group (risk difference, -0.2 percentage points; 95% confidence

22 % (95% CI, 1.9% to 4.5%) in the 40-Gy group (risk difference, -0.3%; 95% CI, -2.3% to 1.7%).

23 ion (RR, 0.26 [95% CrI, 0.14-0.46]; absolute risk difference, -0.32 [95% CrI, -0.60 to -0.16]; low ce

24 o 2.67%) in the no-screening group (absolute risk difference, -0.42% [CI, -0.24% to -0.63%]).

25 e, per-protocol HR, 0.95 [95% CI, .59-1.54]; risk difference, -0.5 [95% CI, -3.8 to 2.9]).

26 ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.92]; absolute risk difference, -0.51 percentage points [95% CI, -0.90

27 ciated with a change in operative mortality (risk difference, -0.69%; 95% CI, -2.7% to 1.35%) or long

28 ratio, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.57 to 1.33]; absolute risk difference, -0.77% [95% CI, -3.19% to 1.66%]; P = .

29 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.08], P = .55; unadjusted risk difference, -0.83% [95% CI, -5.72% to 4.06%]).

30 96 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .63-1.45]; risk difference, -0.9 [95% CI, -4.5 to 2.7]), as well as

31 nc group and 416 [35%] in the placebo group; risk difference, -0.9% [95% CI, -4.7% to 2.8%]).

32 ) and fewer severe ischemic events (absolute risk difference, -0.91% [95% CI, -1.74 to -0.08]) than p

33 difference=0.69; P interaction for absolute risk difference=0.010).

34 ference=0.11; P for interaction for absolute risk difference=0.048), including in patients with estab

35 and CA (HR=0.52 [95% CrI=0.30-0.89; absolute risk difference=-0.12 [95% CrI=-0.24 to -0.03]; number n

36 arone (HR=0.33 [95% CrI=0.15-0.76]; absolute risk difference=-0.17 [95% CrI=-0.32 to -0.06]; number n

37 ntrol (HR=0.34 [95% CrI=0.15-0.74]; absolute risk difference=-0.23 [95% CrI=-0.23 to -0.09]; number n

38 5% CI 87 to 99]) in three sites in Cambodia (risk difference 1%; 95% CI -6 to 8; p=1.00).

39 ntrol group; risk ratio 1.63 [1.01 to 2.67]; risk difference 1.21 [0.04 to 2.38], p=0.060), and no ad

40 o stent, met the primary end point (absolute risk difference 1.29% [upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 2

41 of 113 participants) in the four-dose group (risk difference 1.48%, 95% CI -7.55 to 10.52; p=0.75); s

42 1.0%) of 1346 patients who received placebo (risk difference 1.5%, 95% CI -1.7 to 4.6).

43 noninferiority compared with enoxaparin with risk differences (1-sided 95% CIs) of 10.6% (95% CI, -1.

44 especified criteria for noninferiority, with risk differences (1-sided 95% CIs) of 2.6% (95% CI, -8.9

45 erval [CI] 0.42 to 1.01, p = 0.056; adjusted risk difference -1.03, 95% CI -2.13 to 0.06).

46 86/94 (91.5%) participants on standard cART (risk difference -1.1%; 95% CI -9.3% to 7.1%; p = 0.791).

47 0.95 [95% CI 0.78 to 1.16], p=0.61; adjusted risk difference -1.2% [-5.9 to 3.6]).

48 RT arm in the intention-to-treat population (risk difference -1.2%; 95% CI -7.8% to 5.6%).

49 vice over the ACURATE neo device (95% CI for risk difference -1.3 to -12.9, p=0.0156).

50 ure or disease recurrence, or died (absolute risk difference -1.4%, 95% CI -7.0 to 4.3; hazard ratio

51 ratio 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.90, p = 0.0018; risk difference -1.59%, 95% CI -2.63% to -0.54%), sugges

52 otic-assisted laparoscopic group (unadjusted risk difference = 1.1% [95% CI, -3.1% to 5.4%]; adjusted

53 patients [2%] vs 29 patients [1%]; absolute risk difference, 1.07%; 95% CI, 0.46%-1.69%; hazard rati

54 s higher with aspirin than placebo (absolute risk difference, 1.25% [95% CI, 0.23-2.27]), whereas the

55 30.6%) assigned to empirical PEEP-Fio2 died (risk difference, 1.7% [95% CI, -11.1% to 14.6%]; P = .88

56 ents in the CoreValve Evolut group (absolute risk difference, 1.8%, upper 1-sided 95% confidence limi

57 178 children (73.6%) in the custom-made arm (risk difference, 1.8%; 95% CI, -7.1% to 10.8%).

58 grafts and recipients of other grafts (liver risk difference, 1.8%; 95% CI, -7.8% to 11.8%; kidney ri

59 .79]; laser photocoagulation vs observation risk difference, -1% [95% CI, -9% to 6%]; relative risk,

60 0.92 [95% CI, 0.68-1.25]; adjusted absolute risk difference, -1.0% [95% CI, -10.2% to 8.1%]) and in

61 ose in the liberal-threshold group (absolute risk difference, -1.11 percentage points; 95% confidence

62 the largest reduction in incident infection (risk difference, -1.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2

63 erence, 1.8%; 95% CI, -7.8% to 11.8%; kidney risk difference, -1.5%; 95% CI, -5.4% to 3.1%).

64 ratio, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.59 to 1.19]; absolute risk difference, -1.76% [95% CI, -5.41% to 1.90%]; P = .

65 s (35.1%) in the bicarbonate group (absolute risk difference, -1.8%; 95% CI [-12.3% to 8.9%]; p = 0.8

66 ion arm vs 4.8% (41/854) in the control arm (risk difference, -1.9% [95% confidence interval {CI}, -3

67 nd stent thrombosis (2.4% vs. 0.7%; absolute risk difference: +1.7%; risk ratio: 3.15; 95% confidence

68 y (11.0% for IT vs 12.1% for no IT, absolute risk difference: -1.2%, 95% CI: -3.1% to 0.7%).

69 r sociodemographic characteristics (adjusted risk difference=1.4%).

70 for freedom from pain (21% vs 11%, p<0.0001; risk difference 10, 95% CI 6-14) and freedom from the mo

71 (172 [57.0%] vs 141 [47.0%] women; absolute risk difference 10.0%, 95% CI 2.0-17.9; p=0.0136).

72 38 of 373 infants (10.2%) in the CPAP group (risk difference, 10.3 percentage points; 95% confidence

73 VAD (45.0%) vs with an IABP (34.1% [absolute risk difference, 10.9 percentage points {95% CI, 7.6-14.

74 o soft bedding use (79.4% vs 67.6%; adjusted risk difference, 11.8% [95% CI, 8.1%-15.2%]), and any pa

75 ithout bed sharing (82.8% vs 70.4%; adjusted risk difference, 12.4% [95% CI, 9.3%-15.1%]), no soft be

76 dence interval, 0.7 to 6.0; P=0.01; relative risk difference, 13.3%).

77 atients taking SCM (51% v 37%, respectively; risk difference, -13%; 95% CI, -30% to 3%).

78 idelines identified 507 individuals (69.3%) (risk difference, 14.1%; 95% CI, 11.2-17.0; P < .001).

79 , acquired concordant S aureus colonization (risk difference, -14.1% [95% CI, -30.8% to -3.9%]; hazar

80 e intravenous immunoglobulin group (absolute risk difference 15.9%, one-sided lower limit of the 95%

81 h 82 [80%] in the gentamicin group; adjusted risk difference -15.3%, -24.0 to -6.5).

82 axial LVAD [31.3%] vs IABP [16.0%]; absolute risk difference, 15.4 percentage points [95% CI, 12.5-18

83 y 30% (aHR, 0.71 [95% CI, .63-.81]; absolute risk difference, 1518/100 000 women).

84 ing (22% [20/93] vs 6% [5/89], respectively; risk difference, 16% [95% CI, 6% to 26%]; P = .002).

85 oup met the primary outcome (71.6% vs 57.4%; risk difference, 16.9% [95% CI, 8.5%-25.2%]).

86 gned to intravenous immunoglobulin (absolute risk difference 17.8%, one-sided lower limit of the 95%

87 s 369; 58.97 vs 78.73 per 100 patient-years; risk difference -19.76, 95% CI -30.33 to -9.19).

88 fantrine (97% [279 of 289; 95% CI 94 to 98]; risk difference 2%, 95% CI -1 to 4; p=0.30).

89 bo group had achieved continuous abstinence (risk difference 2.68%, 95% CI -0.96 to 6.33; relative ri

90 the 10% level for any serotype (PCV10-PCV13 risk difference -2.1% [95% CI -4.8 to -0.1] for serotype

91 associated with greater 12-month retention (risk difference = 2.9%, 95% CI: 0.6, 5.2) and combined s

92 % vs. 64%, respectively; P = 0.77; estimated risk difference, 2.1 [95% CI, -12.1 to 16.4]).

93 he intensive treatment group (15/581 [2.6%]; risk difference, 2.58% [95% CI, 1.29% to 3.87%]).

94 use deaths (26 [17%] vs 22 [15%]; unadjusted risk difference, 2.7% [95% CI, -5.6% to 11.0%]) or sympt

95 ively (aflibercept vs laser photocoagulation risk difference, -2% [95% CI, -9% to 5%]; relative risk,

96 p vs 144 of 298 (48.3%) in the 14-day group (risk difference, -2.6% [95% confidence interval, -10.5%

97 (95% CI, 7.2% to 11.1%) in the 40-Gy group (risk difference, -2.7%; 95% CI, -5.6% to 0.2%; P = .07).

98 3% vs 46.2%, respectively; adjusted absolute risk difference, -2.78% [95% CI, -7.80% to 2.25%]; adjus

99 ) in the usual care group had died (absolute risk difference, -2.85%; 95% CI, -6.75 to 1.05; P = .15)

100 rget lesion failure (9.6% vs. 7.2%; absolute risk difference: +2.4%; risk ratio: 1.32; 95% confidence

101 than isoniazid among people living with HIV (risk difference: -2.1%, 95%CI -5.9 to 1.6).

102 en in 12-month nicotine dependence (adjusted risk difference=2.6%) and nicotine dependence among user

103 group than in the sleeve gastrectomy group (risk difference 27% [95% CI 10 to 44]; relative risk [RR

104 were similar in the per-protocol population (risk difference 27% [95% CI 10 to 45]; RR 1.57 [1.14 to

105 l blood pressure 70-90 mm Hg (15%) (absolute risk difference, 27%; 95% CI, 17-37%).

106 ients] vs 39% [28 of 72 patients]); absolute risk difference, -27 (95% CI, -40 to -14), P < .001.

107 p was not significant (aOR 0.86 [0.70-1.06]; risk difference -3.3 percentage points [-8.0 to 1.4]).

108 incidence of HIV compared to those without (risk difference = 3.5 [95% CI 0.1, 7.0]).

109 ncidence of HIV compared with those without (risk difference = 3.5, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.1

110 5% confidence interval, 0.51-2.53; P = 0.76; risk difference, 3.1%; 95% confidence interval, -16.2 to

111 italizations) on nonmarathon dates (absolute risk difference, 3.3 percentage points; 95% confidence i

112 hemorrhage (7 [4.7%] vs 2 [1.3%]; unadjusted risk difference, 3.3% [95% CI, -0.5% to 7.2%]).

113 2.3%) randomized to intravenous antibiotics (risk difference, 3.6%; 2-sided 95% confidence interval,

114 7-1.35; P = .79]; aflibercept vs observation risk difference, -3% [95% CI, -11% to 4%]; relative risk

115 0.92 [95% CI, 0.68-1.26]; adjusted absolute risk difference, -3.1% [95% CI, -12.3% to 6.1%]).

116 ants (73.7%) randomized to placebo (adjusted risk difference, -3.6% [95% CI, -12.7% to 5.4%]; adjuste

117 ]), or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (absolute risk difference, -3.7 incident cases per 1000 person-yea

118 n in comparison with 12-month DAPT (absolute risk difference, -3.8 incident cases per 1000 person-yea

119 treatment group than in the AM (62% vs 30%; risk difference, 32%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 13%-

120 commonly in the treatment group (82% vs 47%; risk difference, 35%; 95% CI, 16%-50%; P < .001).

121 early ECMO-facilitated resuscitation group (risk difference 36.2%, 3.7-59.2; posterior probability o

122 ed an mRS score of 0-3 at 365 days (adjusted risk difference 4% [95% CI -4 to 12]; p=0.33).

123 n group had clearance at follow-up (adjusted risk difference -4.4%, -8.7 to 0).

124 conventional laparoscopic group (unadjusted risk difference = 4.1% [95% CI, -1.4% to 9.6%]; adjusted

125 f the delayed umbilical cord clamping group (risk difference, 4% [95% CI, -2% to 9%]; P = .16).

126 global clinical impression (median absolute risk difference, 4% [range, 2% to 4%]), and increased wi

127 vs 7.1% who received on-scene resuscitation (risk difference, 4.2% [95% CI, 3.5%-4.9%]).

128 vs 8.5% who received on-scene resuscitation (risk difference, 4.6% [95% CI, 4.0%- 5.1%]).

129 reached the primary radiographic end point (risk difference, 4.7% [1-sided 95% CI, -7.0% to + infini

130 p vs 60 of 175 (34.3%) in the control group (risk difference, -4% [95% CI, -15% to 6%]; P = .39).

131 of 125 (94.4%) with conservative management (risk difference, -4.1 percentage points; 95% confidence

132 [95% CI, 0.54-0.87]), midterm DAPT (absolute risk difference, -4.6 incident cases per 1000 person-yea

133 ely, reached the primary clinical end point (risk difference, -4.8% [1-sided 95% CI, -13.6% to + infi

134 .74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-2.88; risk difference: 4.0%, 95% CI 0.4-7.6%], as was the rate

135 e group had a complete or partial remission (risk difference, 40 percentage points; 95% CI, 25 to 55;

136 10%] of 219 [8% of those assigned to group], risk difference 5.2%, 95% CI -1.0 to 11.4; odds ratio [O

137 direct laryngoscopy group (adjusted absolute risk difference 5.5% [95% CI 0.7 to 10.3]; p=0.024).

138 5.2) and combined suppression and retention (risk difference = 5.8%, 95% CI: 3.0, 8.6).

139 up (8% [20/236] vs 3% [8/238], respectively; risk difference, 5% [95% CI, 1% to 9%]; P = .02).

140 % with hydrocortisone vs 50.0% with placebo; risk difference, 5.2% [95% CI, -4.9% to 15.2%]; odds rat

141 raquine was 48% (67 of 141; 95% CI 39 to 56; risk difference 51%, 95% CI 42 to 59; p<0.0001).

142 rticipants in the gentamicin group (adjusted risk difference -6.4%, 95% CI -10.4% to -2.4%).

143 -of-network bills (27% vs 20%, respectively; risk difference, 6% [95% CI, 3.9%-8.9%]; P < .001).

144 r than the reference amount, 34.2%; absolute risk difference, 6.1% [95% CI, 4.5%-7.7%]).

145 27 of 338 infants (8.0%) in the CPAP group (risk difference, 6.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 1.7 to 1

146 PT followed by aspirin monotherapy (absolute risk difference, -6.1 incident cases per 1000 person-yea

147 13.4%-20.8%, respectively; McNemar P = .002; risk difference, -6.8%; 95% CI, -10.8% to -2.7%).

148 nd nicotine dependence among users (adjusted risk difference=6.4%).

149 ity of the ACURATE neo was not met (absolute risk difference 7.1% [upper 95% confidence limit 12.0%],

150 re group (32 [14%] of 226 vs 14 [6%] of 217; risk difference 7.7%, 95% CI 2.1 to 13.3; OR 2.4, 95% CI

151 107 [90%] in the gentamicin group; adjusted risk difference -7.8%, -13.6 to -2.0).

152 no complications (28% vs 20%, respectively; risk difference, 7% [95% CI, 5.8%-8.8%]; P < .001).

153 r than the reference amount, 27.9%; absolute risk difference, 7.2% [95% CI, 6.1%-8.3%]).

154 up (relative risk, 1.71 [95% CI, 1.12-2.65]; risk difference, 7.9% [95% CI, 1.9%-14.0%]; P = .01).

155 8.0% in the CoreValve Evolut group (absolute risk difference, -7.5% [95% CI, -12.4 to -2.60]; P=0.002

156 st bothersome symptom (35% vs 27%, p=0.0009; risk difference 8, 95% CI 3-13).

157 e group had a complete or partial remission (risk difference, 8 percentage points; 95% confidence int

158 in the control group had a positive outcome (risk difference, 8% [CI, -1% to 17%]).

159 d any pacifier use (68.5% vs 59.8%; adjusted risk difference, 8.7% [95% CI, 3.9%-13.1%]).

160 tion (89.1% vs 80.2%, respectively; adjusted risk difference, 8.9% [95% CI, 5.3%-11.7%]), room sharin

161 % with hydrocortisone vs 23.7% with placebo; risk difference, -8.2% [95% CI, -16.2% to -0.1%]; odds r

162 scue therapy (4/102 [3.9%] vs 12/98 [12.2%]; risk difference, -8.3% [95% CI, -15.8% to -0.8%]; P = .0

163 ratio, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.55 to 1.02]; P = .06; risk difference, -8.5% [95% CI, -18.2% to 1.2%]).

164 o 100) after dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (risk difference 9%, 95% CI 1 to 17; p=0.12).

165 l-cause revisits (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.44-3.11; risk difference: 9.4%, 95% CI 4.7-14.2%).

166 placebo (47.7%) (difference, -4.2%; absolute risk difference 95% [exact] CI, -11% to 2.8%]; P = .26).

167 eaths in the standard protocol arm (adjusted risk difference 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01, p = 0.87).

168 tal pain and/or infection when B+P (adjusted risk difference [97.5% CI]: -2% [-10% to 6%]) or PA (4%

169 proaching 41 weeks should be informed on the risk differences according to parity so that they are ab

170 with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), but risk differences across age groups both in relation to f

171 Risk differences adjusted for age, sex, and race/ethnici

172 ralized linear models, we estimated adjusted risk differences, adjusted risk ratios, and 95% confiden

173 an framework to derive risk ratios (RRs) and risk differences along with 95% credible intervals (CrIs

174 enous populations, and we also estimated the risk difference and relative risk between Indigenous and

175 We used Poisson to estimate adjusted risk differences and risk ratios of long-term opioid use

176 al risk difference will equal the stratified risk differences and the complete-case analysis will be

177 Hazard ratio (HR) and absolute risk difference (ARD) over the entire follow-up for inci

178 roup and 7.1% in the control group (absolute risk difference [ARD] 3.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI]

179 mproves recovery by a large amount (absolute risk difference [ARD] range, 7% to 10%) and may result i

180 [OR], 0.51 [95% CI, 0.33 to 0.79]; absolute risk difference [ARD], -0.67 [95% CI, -1.10 to -0.24]);

181 us delivery before 37 weeks (pooled absolute risk difference [ARD], -1.44% [95% CI, -3.31% to 0.43%];

182 94 [95% CI, 0.81 to 1.09], P = .43; adjusted risk difference [ARD], -3.7% [95% CI, -8.7% to 1.2%]) bu

183 th lower risk of death over 1 year (absolute risk difference [ARD], -6.7% [95% CI, -7.9% to -5.6%]; h

184 onsurgical group [P < .001]; absolute 8-year risk difference [ARD], 16.9% [95% CI, 13.1%-20.4%]; adju

185 [RR], 1.60 [95% CI, 1.24 to 2.13]; absolute risk difference [ARD], 9% [95% CI, 5% to 15%]) and reduc

186 Adjusted risk differences (ARDs) and adjusted risk ratios (ARRs)

187 We calculated adjusted risk differences (ARDs) following logistic regression.

188 Adjusted relative risks (aRRs) and absolute risk differences (ARDs) were adjusted for demographic ch

189 We calculated adjusted risk differences (aRDs) with cluster adjustment using ge

190 Nonparametric bounds for the risk difference are straightforward to calculate and mak

191 ation of risk models for predicting absolute risk difference, as compared to a traditional backwards

192 00 person-years among never users (estimated risk difference at age 70 years, 0.09% [95% CI, -0.02% t

193 The main outcome was the mortality risk difference at the study-specific follow-up interval

194 and mortality were estimated as the absolute risk difference between Black and White patients within

195 The median absolute risk difference between groups was -2.8%, favoring the i

196 Within these quartiles, we assessed absolute-risk difference between the 50 x 109/L- and 25 x 109/L-t

197 e 90% upper confidence bound of the absolute risk difference between the two groups in the proportion

198 CABG versus PCI by calculating the absolute risk difference between the two strategies) by cross-val

199 ven the similar HRs for each trial, absolute risk differences between treatment groups were greater i

200 American and Hispanic participants, adjusted risk differences comparing participants with vs without

201 aved stabilized inverse probability weights, risk differences estimated from inverse-probability weig

202 ratio, 0.78 [CI, 0.63 to 0.95]) (a negative risk difference favors continuing).

203 Here we describe bounds for the risk difference for an effect of a binary exposure on a

204 The risk difference for DAA treatment was -3.8% (95% CI -9.2

205 The 10-year mortality risk difference for HCV infection was 4.3% (95% CI 0.4-8

206 The risk difference for highest versus lowest THC level was

207 The observed risk difference for mortality fell within 5% of predicte

208 -0.36 to -0.10; P < .001), and the absolute risk difference for the acquisition of cow's milk tolera

209 In the complete case analysis the absolute risk difference for the occurrence of at least 1 AM over

210 Early tracheostomy presented less risk difference for ventilator-associated pneumonia (ris

211 The absolute risk differences for in-hospital and 30-day deaths betwe

212 Population risk differences for MACE were estimated.

213 The absolute risk differences for rivaroxaban with aspirin were compa

214 Risk differences for the total effect and stochastic dir

215 ompared with 2.74%), a significantly greater risk difference in the data from 2012-2013 than from 200

216 The end point was the risk difference in the onset of new allergen sensitizati

217 exchangeability for external validity of the risk difference is stronger than that for internal valid

218 ention-to-treat population on the basis of a risk-difference margin of 7.7% for the primary composite

219 und a significant departure from an additive risk difference model in both the initial and replicatio

220 The risk difference (no co-trimoxazole group minus co-trimox

221 95% CI 0.77 - 1.20), equating to an absolute risk difference of -0.11% (95% CI -0.68 - 0.47%).

222 [CI], .77 to 1.20), equating to an absolute risk difference of -0.11% (95% CI, -.68% to .47%).

223 lated event within 2 years of randomization (risk difference of -0.3% [1-sided 95% CI, -4% to infinit

224 group and 11.43% in the placebo group, for a risk difference of -0.46 percentage points (95% CI, -7.8

225 suppressed HIV and severe fibrosis yielded a risk difference of -1.1% (95% CI, -2.8% to .6%), with 51

226 ] in the conservative-management group), the risk difference of -11.0 percentage points (95% CI, -18.

227 ccounting for the adaptive design, yielded a risk difference of -19 percentage points (upper boundary

228 markers positive; n = 3,842) had an absolute risk difference of -4.4% (95% confidence interval: -9.7%

229 s ratio (aOR) of 0.80 (95% CI 0.65-0.98) and risk difference of -5.0 percentage points (95% CI -9.7 t

230 the control group, for an adjusted absolute risk difference of -5.5 (95% confidence interval -13.8 t

231 rkers "positive"; n = 1,437) had an absolute risk difference of -7.3% (95% confidence interval: -13.8

232 the standard protocol recovered, yielding a risk difference of 0.03 (95% CI -0.05 to 0.10, p = 0.52;

233 fered delayed antibiotic prescription, for a risk difference of 10.3% (95% CI, 0.6% to 20.1%) and a r

234 superiority compared with enoxaparin with a risk difference of 15.1%; 2-sided 90% CI, 4.9% to 25.2%)

235 with a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test-adjusted risk difference of 16.1% (95% CI 3.9-28.3; p=0.010).

236 ount (50% versus 32%), an intention-to-treat risk difference of 18 percentage points (95% CI 11 to 23

237 of 732 [18.2%]), with an unadjusted absolute risk difference of 2.0% (95% CI, -2.0% to 6.1%; P = .33)

238 At endline, there was a risk difference of 38.9% (95% CI 32.2-45.6, p<0.001) bet

239 ieved complete resolution of symptoms, for a risk difference of 4.7% (95% CI, -1.8% to 11.2%) and a r

240 APTT (21.3%; 95% CI, 20.6%-21.9%) yielding a risk difference of 5.1% (95% CI, 2.9%-7.2%).

241 The noninferiority margin was a risk difference of 6 percentage points.

242 ieved complete resolution of symptoms, for a risk difference of 8.7% (95% CI, 1.2% to 16.2%) and a re

243 ve risk: 0.38; p < 0.01), translating into a risk difference of 866.

244 The 10-year risk difference of treating all coinfected persons with

245 Noninferiority margins varied widely: risk differences of 0.4% to 25%, hazard ratios of 1.05 t

246 ersus 27.9%); these corresponded to absolute risk differences of 13.6 events per 100 patients, 11.9 e

247 To determine absolute rates and risk differences of incident heart failure (HF), coronar

248 Risk differences of past-year nonmedical cannabis use, f

249 colorectal cancer in patients with adenomas (risk difference per 100,000 person-years, 5.6; 95% CI -1

250 in immediate verbal recall z score, marginal risk difference (RD) = -0.09 (95% confidence interval (C

251 ted with higher prevalence of preterm birth (risk difference (RD) = 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI

252 regression models were used to estimate the risk difference (RD) and relative risk (RR) of outcomes

253 Risk difference (RD) between control and pNPWT patients

254 rence -1 d, P < 0.0001), less complications [risk difference (RD): -8.4%, 95% confidence interval (CI

255 r intention-to-treat and per-protocol risks, risk differences (RD), and hazard ratios (HR) for the co

256 Risk differences (RD), risk ratios, and 95% confidence i

257 failure was lower in intervention clusters (risk difference [RD] -5.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI]

258 interval [CI] 0.21 to 0.91], p-value 0.027, risk difference [RD] -57/10,000 [95% CI -106/10,000 to -

259 models when considering the first interval (risk difference [RD] 0.0096, 95% CI 0.008-0.011).

260 ratio [RR] 3.12 [95% CI 1.76-5.55], I(2)=0%, risk difference [RD] 15.1%, high-certainty), anaphylaxis

261 ard arm (n = 297) by 7 days (91% versus 68%; risk difference [RD] 23% [95% confidence interval (CI) 1

262 th 143 (83%) in the smaller incentive group (risk difference [RD] 9.8, 95% CI 1.2 to 18.5) and 150 (8

263 Africa, compared to 68% in the standard arm (risk difference [RD] [95% confidence interval (CI)] 10%

264 18.9 vs 10.0 per 1000 person-years; absolute risk difference [RD] at 5 years, 4.7%; 95% CI, 1.0%-8.4%

265 ion: absolute benefit was clear at 6 months (risk difference [RD], -0.004; 95% CI, -0.004 to -0.004),

266 major bleeding compared with triple therapy (risk difference [RD], -0.013 [95% CI, -0.025 to -0.002])

267 philic statin users (8.1% vs. 3.3%; absolute risk difference [RD], -4.8 percentage points [95% CI, -6

268 h lower risk of mortality (22.31% vs 28.57%; risk difference [RD], -5.53% [95% CI, -10.29% to -0.76%]

269 e increased risk of neurosensory impairment (risk difference [RD], 0.01; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.10 and ri

270 cohort (0.9% vs 0.4%, respectively; absolute risk difference [RD], 0.5% [95% CI, 0%-0.9%]).

271 lity risk, 5.49% vs 1.22%; adjusted absolute risk difference [RD], 1.03% [95% CI, 0.91%-1.15%]; adjus

272 counseling alone at 12 weeks (21.9% vs 9.1%; risk difference [RD], 12.8 [95% CI, 4.0 to 21.6]) but no

273 lack women: HR, 2.86 [95% CI, 2.19-3.72] and risk difference [RD], 89 cases/1000 people [95% CI, 61-1

274 ing modified Poisson regression and weighted risk differences (RDs) using binomial regression.

275 Risk differences (RDs) were pooled using random-effects

276 tic regression was used to estimate marginal risk differences (RDs).

277 1 (1.5%) case of delayed bleeding (absolute risk difference, reduction of 10.6%; 95% confidence inte

278 6 (5%) patients in the clip group (absolute risk difference, reduction of 7% in the clip group; 95%

279 We show that estimation of the marginal risk difference requires an unbiased estimate of the unc

280 %; 2012-2013: 12.42% compared with 9.02%), a risk difference significantly greater in the 2012-2013 d

281 atients (61%) in the placebo group (absolute risk difference taking into account center effect, -7% [

282 the advantages of the RMST over the absolute risk difference, the number needed to treat, and the med

283 rrowed from 2 (the width of the range of the risk difference) to 0 (point identification).

284 Risk differences varied between 0.4 per 1,000 births (95

285 oducts within 14 days of birth, the absolute risk difference was -0.65% (-1.01 to -0.29; relative ris

286 That risk difference was -12% (95% CI: -22 to -1%, I2 : 69%,

287 those aged 75 to 84 years, the corresponding risk difference was 0.07 (CI, -0.93 to 1.3) death per 10

288 At 180 days, the absolute risk difference was 0.4 percentage points (95% CI, -2.1

289 The greatest risk difference was in the age 50 to 64 years group, wit

290 However, the absolute risk difference was small.

291 d factors were taken into consideration, the risk difference were 20.7 (95% CI -2.6, 44.0) and 22.6 (

292 The corresponding absolute risk differences were -2.0% (95% CI, -3.3% to -0.7%) and

293 Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and absolute risk differences were adjusted for sex, age, smoking sta

294 Risk differences were estimated by targeted maximum like

295 Adjusted risk differences were obtained from logistic regression

296 d without moderate to severe pain, and these risk differences were tested for change over time.

297 on the absolute scale, however, the marginal risk difference will equal the stratified risk differenc

298 ) of those given amoxicillin and gentamicin (risk difference with reference -1.9, 95% CI -5.1 to 1.3)

299 nzylpenicillin, gentamicin, and amoxicillin (risk difference with reference 1.1, -2.3 to 4.5).

300 assessed using a stratified Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, with non-inferiority declared if the lo