ライフサイエンスコーパス: absolute difference

1 s, 0.27-1.62, p=0.006) in hospitals and 47% (absolute difference 0.033 cases per 10,000 IDs, 0.018-0.

2 acebo group (19.45% vs 19.82%, respectively; absolute difference 0.36%, 95% CI -6.07 to 7.38, p=0.92)

3 MRSA prevalence density was reduced by 50% (absolute difference 0.94 cases per 1000 OBDs, 0.27-1.62,

4 in the VGLB group versus 61.7% in controls (absolute difference -0.6%; lower limit of 95% confidence

5 6.5%) in the everolimus-eluting stent group (absolute difference -0.8% [95% CI -3.3 to 1.8], pnon-inf

6 video laryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy (absolute difference, 0 [95% CI, 0 to 0]; P = .95).

7 igned to placebo (Hodges-Lehmann estimate of absolute difference, 0 days; 96.2% confidence interval [

8 red with 0.85 in the placebo group (n = 97) (absolute difference, 0.09 [95% CI, -0.37 to 0.54] for 3

9 than surrogates' (C statistic, 0.83 vs 0.74; absolute difference, 0.094; 95% CI, 0.024-0.163; P = .00

10 2003 to 0.4% (95% CI, 0.31%-0.48%) in 2013 (absolute difference, 0.1%; 95% CI, 0.01%-0.29%).

11 red with 1.21 in the placebo group (n = 89) (absolute difference, 0.23 [95% CI, -0.35 to 0.82] for 3

12 ents, the corresponding rates were both 13% (absolute difference, 0.3%; 95% CI, -5.0% to 6.3%).

13 2003 to 0.9% (95% CI, 0.75%-1.01%) in 2013 (absolute difference, 0.3%; 95% CI, 0.03%-0.43%).

14 of 1025 patients (9.2%) in the saline group (absolute difference, 0.4% [95% CI, -2.1% to 2.9%]; relat

15 in 2003 to 2.6 (95% CI, 2.27-2.85) in 2013 (absolute difference, 0.5, 95% CI, 0.05-0.86).

16 patients and control subjects, respectively (absolute difference, 0.57%; upper limit of 1-sided 95% c

17 ) but not among those with low-risk disease (absolute difference, 0.7 percentage points; 95% CI, -10.

18 ) and 91 of 416 patients with BiPAP (21.9%) (absolute difference, 0.9%; 95% CI, -4.9% to 6.6%; P = .0

19 odds ratio [AOR], 1.18 [95% CI, 1.10-1.28]; absolute difference, +0.68% [95% CI, 0.36%-1.01%]; numbe

20 6.6%; AOR, 1.00 [0.94-1.06]; nonsignificant absolute difference, -0.01% [-0.37% to 0.36%]).

21 of 1110 patients (3.4%) in the saline group (absolute difference, -0.1% [95% CI, -1.6% to 1.4%]; RR,

22 f 260 patients in the control group (22.3%) (absolute difference, -0.5 percentage point; 95% confiden

23 2003 to 4.9% (95% CI, 4.58%-5.22%) in 2013 (absolute difference, -0.5%; 95% CI, -0.11% to -0.89%), b

24 tensive group vs 0.6% in the moderate group; absolute difference, -0.6%; 95% CI, -1.8% to 0.6%; P = .

25 tervention and control groups, respectively (absolute difference, -0.7 percentage point [CI, -7.3 to

26 e difference, -17%; P = .0026), montelukast (absolute difference, -0.74; percentage difference, -15%;

27 ced versus placebo with 200 mg of BI 671800 (absolute difference, -0.85; percentage difference, -17%;

28 yngoscopy vs 83.2% with direct laryngoscopy; absolute difference 1.2% [95% CI, -6.3% to 8.6%]; P = .7

29 increased from 6.2% in 2009 to 7.5% in 2013; absolute difference 1.3% (95% CI, 1.30-1.40%; p < 0.0001

30 (0.3%) randomly assigned to aspirin had VTE (absolute difference, 1.0 percentage point [95% CI, -0.5

31 -flow nasal oxygen therapy [6.8%]; P = .66) (absolute difference, 1.2% [95% CI, -2.3% to 4.8%].

32 .3 (2.9) vs -0.12 (2.8) mEq/L, respectively (absolute difference, 1.4 mEq/L; 95% CI of the difference

33 ents [57.2%]; placebo, 106 patients [58.9%]; absolute difference, 1.7%; 95% CI, -8.5% to 11.7%), alth

34 gnificantly reduced hospital length of stay (absolute difference, 1.9 days; 95% CI, 0.6 to 3.2 days),

35 and 15% (31 of 207) in the antibiotic group (absolute difference, 1.93%; 95% CI, -8.98% to 5.12%).

36 irin and clopidogrel (AOR, 1.47 [1.16-1.86]; absolute difference, +1.67% [0.58%-3.00%]; NNH, 60).

37 harge (24.1% vs 27.8%; AOR, 1.14; 1.07-1.22; absolute difference, +1.99% [0.78%-3.22%]; number needed

38 reatment group at rest and at stress (median absolute difference, -1.0 [95% confidence interval, -1.9

39 .8 days vs 3.8 days for the intensive group (absolute difference, -1.0 days; 95% CI, -1.6 to -0.2; P

40 %) in the saline group died in the hospital (absolute difference, -1.0% [95% CI, -3.3% to 1.2%]; RR,

41 tervention and control groups, respectively (absolute difference, -1.1 percentage points [95% CI, -7.

42 .4 days vs 10.9 days in the intensive group (absolute difference, -1.5 days; 95% CI, -3.1 to -0.3; P

43 ts in the CF and control arms, respectively (absolute difference, -1.6%; lower limit of 1-sided 95% c

44 15%; P = .0115), and fluticasone propionate (absolute difference, -1.64; percentage difference, -33%;

45 (63.4%) in the intravenous-lorazepam group (absolute difference, 10 percentage points; 95% confidenc

46 icine and in 53 (29.4%) assigned to placebo (absolute difference, 10.0%; 95% CI, 1.1%-18.7%; number n

47 r "minor" problems (95% CI -38.6% to -14.2%, absolute difference: -10,933 per year, 95% CI -15,995 to

48 disability-free survival at day 90 with MT (absolute difference 11%, adjusted OR 2.12, 95% CI 0.65 t

49 atin, and trastuzumab plus pertuzumab group (absolute difference -11.3 percentage points, 95% CI -20.

50 P < 0.001) but not at 48 hours (72 vs. 61%; absolute difference, 11%; 95% CI, -23 to 2).

51 g an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (absolute difference, 11%; hazard ratio=0.74 [95% confide

52 ed 46% (from 24.0% in 2010 to 35.3% in 2013; absolute difference, 11.3%; adjusted test for linear tre

53 ial diagnosis (43.8% vs 55.6%, respectively; absolute difference, 11.8%; 95% CI, 2.1%-21.5%).

54 ion start to 13.1% at intervention month 18 (absolute difference, -11.0%) for control practices; from

55 c prescribing decreased from 26.8% to 14.3% (absolute difference, 12.5%) among intervention practices

56 d with 9 of 277 (3.2%) in the control group (absolute difference, 12.9 percentage points; 95% confide

57 py group within+ 7 days after randomization (absolute difference, -12.4%; 95% CI, -23.5% to -1.3%; P

58 ngle-dose and 3-dose regimens, respectively (absolute difference, 13% [95% confidence interval {CI},

59 cantly more common with cooling (86 vs. 73%; absolute difference, 13%; 95% CI, 2 to 25; P = 0.021).

60 were reported as receiving general payments (absolute difference, 13.3%; 95% CI, 13.1-13.6; odds rati

61 ventilation (54% vs 55%; p = 0.92; 95% CI of absolute difference, -13.8 to 12.4) but was associated w

62 41.2%]; colchicine, 38/141 patients [27.0%]; absolute difference, 14.2%; 95% CI, 3.3%-24.7%).

63 on among men with intermediate-risk disease (absolute difference, 14.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 2.8

64 han during control therapy (74.7% vs. 59.5%; absolute difference, 15.2 percentage points; 95% confide

65 ntly lower in the cooling group (19 vs. 34%; absolute difference, -16%; 95% CI, -28 to -4; P = 0.013)

66 ) for control practices; from 22.1% to 6.1% (absolute difference, -16.0%) for suggested alternatives

67 o -2.9%]; P < .001); and from 19.9% to 3.7% (absolute difference, -16.3%) for peer comparison (differ

68 ; P = .004, with imputation of missing data; absolute difference, 17.2%; 95% CI, 6.2% to 28.2%).

69 ive cure were 76.5% and 58.8%, respectively (absolute difference, 17.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 7.9

70 nfections (43/137 [31.4%] vs 63/128 [49.2%]; absolute difference, -17.8%; 95% CI, -30.2% to -5.4%; P

71 nce in 6-minute walk distance (399 vs 417 m; absolute difference, 18 m [95% CI, 6-30]; P = .30), afte

72 rences in trajectories); from 23.2% to 5.2% (absolute difference, -18.1%) for accountable justificati

73 the median center-level ITTS was 66.9% (mean absolute difference 19.6%, 95% limits of agreement 4.3 t

74 ion unit for stress testing (58% versus 77%; absolute difference, 19%; 95% CI, 6%-31%).

75 delayed initiation group (83 of 119 [69.8%]; absolute difference, -19.6%; 95% CI, -32.0% to -7.2%; P<

76 in the VGLB group versus 14.5% in controls (absolute difference -2.8%; upper limit of 95% CI: 3.5; p

77 ; hazard ratio=0.88 [0.79-0.97] in women and absolute difference, 2%; hazard ratio=0.95 [0.91-0.998]

78 95% CI, -10.5 to 11.8) or high-risk disease (absolute difference, 2.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -11.

79 cess rate, 44.2% [53/120] vs 41.7% [48/115]; absolute difference, 2.4% [95% CI, -10.2% to 15.1%]).

80 aventricular tachyarrhythmia (3.1% vs. 0.4%; absolute difference, 2.7 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.1

81 tion (42.1% vs 46.6%; AOR, 1.13 [1.08-1.17]; absolute difference, +2.23% [1.55%-2.92%]; number needed

82 ol (usual care) group (CI, 7.89% to 10.92%) (absolute difference, -2.01 percentage points [CI, -4.18

83 standard oxygen therapy (25.4 vs 23.2 days; absolute difference, -2.2 days; 95% CI, -0.1 to 4.6 days

84 mplications (10/181 [5.4%] vs 14/181 [7.7%]; absolute difference, -2.3% [95% CI, -7.4% to 2.8%]; P =

85 tensive group vs 4.9% in the moderate group; absolute difference, -2.4%, 95% CI, -7.1% to 2.2%) and b

86 direct laryngoscopy groups (67.7% vs 70.3%; absolute difference, -2.5% [95% CI, -11.9% to 6.9%]; P =

87 -145 mL) in the control group (P = .19), the absolute difference 20 mL (95% CI, -13 to 35 mL).

88 % for those with qSOFA score of 2 or higher (absolute difference, 21%; 95% CI, 15%-26%).

89 tients living in high-poverty neighborhoods (absolute difference, 21.8% [95% CI, 14.1%-29.4%]), had a

90 %] of 343 patients died vs 57 [60.6%] of 94; absolute difference 22.1% [95% CI 11.0-33.3]; adjusted h

91 her likelihood of SVR than was dual therapy (absolute difference, 22 to 31 percentage points).

92 mpared with 26.7% receiving placebo (n = 60; absolute difference, 22.5%; 95% confidence interval, 5.6

93 22 patients (56.4%) in the face mask group (absolute difference, -22.3%; 95% CI, -43.3 to -1.4; P =

94 frequent with surgery than with observation (absolute difference, 26.2 percentage points; 95% CI, 19.

95 d 64.4% of women in the physiotherapy group (absolute difference, 26.4 percentage points; 95% confide

96 h 59% (CI, 48% to 69%) in the placebo group (absolute difference, 27 percentage points [CI, 12 to 42

97 in the initial conservative treatment group (absolute difference 3.7% [95% CI -4.3 to 11.6], odds rat

98 with tPA within 3 hours (82.8% versus 79.2%, absolute difference +3.5%, P<0.0001, the National Instit

99 st and did not differ between women and men (absolute difference, 3%; hazard ratio=0.88 [0.79-0.97] i

100 7.8 per 100,000 (95% CI, 7.64-7.89) in 2013 (absolute difference, 3.3; 95% CI, 3.09-3.41) among adult

101 5 of 956 (24.6%) of the usual care patients (absolute difference, 3.4%; 95% CI, -0.3% to 7.2%; P = .0

102 .4%) and 22 of 79 noncooled infants (27.9%) (absolute difference, 3.5%; 95% CI, -1% to 17%).

103 mendan group and 30.9% in the placebo group (absolute difference, 3.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.5

104 spectively, calculated by the Weibull model; absolute difference, 3.7 percentage points; 95% upper co

105 %] vs 17/179 [9.5%] for direct laryngoscopy; absolute difference, 3.8% [95% CI, -2.7% to 10.4%]; P =

106 sing group met at least 1 of the end points (absolute difference, 3.9% [95% CI, 0.7%-7.2%], P = .02;

107 ion group vs 50 (27.3%) in the oxygen group (absolute difference, -3.2 [95% CI, -12.1 to 5.6]; P = .4

108 (19.1%) in the NIV group were reintubation (absolute difference, -3.7%; 95% CI, -9.1% to infinity);

109 group and 53.4% in the physiotherapy group (absolute difference, 31.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 22.

110 e nurses in the intervention group had quit (absolute difference 33.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI]

111 ling from 12 hours of treatment (54 vs. 20%; absolute difference, 34%; 95% confidence interval [95% C

112 pectively, failed to recover renal function (absolute difference, -34.8%; 95% CI, -54.6% to -15.0%; P

113 %) of 362 patients treated with bevacizumab (absolute difference, 4.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI],

114 ing HSCT (8.7%) vs 1 control patient (4.5%) (absolute difference, 4.2% [95% CI, -14.2% to 22.6%]; P =

115 e SGRQ scores (30.9 vs 26.5 units; P < .001; absolute difference, 4.4 [95% CI, 2.2-6.6]) and mMRC sca

116 tile range, 9-31] in the conventional group; absolute difference, -4 [95% CI, -54 to 46]; P = .66].

117 le range, 5.0 to 10.0) in the control group (absolute difference, -4.0 days; 95% CI, -4.7 to -3.3; P<

118 2; adjusted proportions, 22.7% versus 26.7%; absolute difference, -4.0%; 95% confidence interval, -7.

119 roup and 18.2% (n = 8) for the helmet group (absolute difference, -43.3%; 95% CI, -62.4% to -24.3%; P

120 the usual care group responded to treatment: absolute difference 45% (95% CI 37-53), adjusted odds ra

121 $2141-$2314) among primary care physicians (absolute difference, $4651; 95% CI, $4014-$5288).

122 tervention practices vs from 28.4% to 22.6% (absolute difference, 5.8%) in controls (difference of di

123 5 hours (IQR, 10-47 hours) in the NIV group (absolute difference, -5 hours; 95% CI, -34 to 24 hours).

124 decreased from $16,466 to $10,528 (adjusted absolute difference-$5451, 95% CI -$7755 to -$3147), lea

125 vs 38/263 [14.4%] in the conventional group; absolute difference, 6.1% [95% CI, 0.7% to 11.6%]; P = .

126 5%] vs 5/179 [2.8%] for direct laryngoscopy; absolute difference, 6.7% [95% CI, 1.8% to 11.6%]; P = .

127 the standard oxygen therapy group had died (absolute difference, -6.5%; 95% CI, -16.0% to 3.0%; P =

128 on group and 82 (44.8%) in the oxygen group (absolute difference, -6.6 [95% CI, -16.6 to 3.4]; P = .2

129 d with 7.3% of antiarrhythmic drug patients (absolute difference, 62.6% [p < 0.001]).

130 ative reduction 86%, 90% CI 64-96, p=0.0001; absolute difference 7.8/100 person-years, 90% CI 4.3-11.

131 zard ratio, 1.59 [CI, 0.99 to 2.56]) and UC (absolute difference, 7 cases per 100,000 person-years [C

132 ngle-dose and 3-dose regimens, respectively (absolute difference, 7% [95% CI, -7% to 22%]; P = .49).

133 9%] vs 32 [12.2%] in the conventional group; absolute difference, 7.2% [95% CI, 2.5% to 12.2%]; P = .

134 d with 7 of 277 (2.5%) in the control group (absolute difference, 7.4 percentage points; 95% CI, 3.4

135 280 patients [18.6%] vs. 31 of 279 [11.1%]; absolute difference, 7.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 1.6

136 ients [33.9%]; placebo, 75 patients [41.7%]; absolute difference, 7.8%; 95% CI, -2.2% to 17.6%) or po

137 etween-group difference in LDL-C was -36.1%; absolute difference, -71.7 mg/dL.

138 etween-group difference in LDL-C was -37.8%; absolute difference, -75.8 mg/dL.

139 pegylated interferon alfa-2a plus ribavirin (absolute difference, 8 percentage points [95% CI, 3 to 1

140 group vs 36 (20.0%) in the colchicine group (absolute difference, 8.3%; 95% CI; 0.76%-15.9%; number n

141 se in serum creatinine level of 50% or more (absolute difference, 8.8% [CI, 4.5% to 13.1%]; odds rati

142 ements in vaccination rates over usual care (absolute differences, 8.4 and 7.8 percentage points).

143 number of angina episodes per month (median absolute difference, -8.5 [95% confidence interval, -15.

144 Scale-documented cohort; 73.0% versus 64.0%, absolute difference +9.0%, P<0.0001, overall cohort).

145 dioverter defibrillator was less pronounced (absolute difference, 9%; hazard ratio=0.84 [0.79-0.89];

146 in 109 (76.8%) in the axial-flow pump group (absolute difference, 9.4 percentage points; 95% lower co

147 ed 48% (from 21.4% in 2010 to 11.6% in 2013; absolute difference, -9.8%; adjusted test for linear tre

148 The corresponding absolute difference (95% confidence interval [CI]) in LV

149 Adjusted absolute differences (95% confidence interval) in surviv

150 iving aspirin alone (AOR, 1.19 [1.06- 1.34]; absolute difference [95% CI], +0.68% [0.21%-1.20%]; NNH,

151 eir perceptions of operative risk increased [absolute difference (AD) = -29.6% from 1.0 standard devi

152 ional management practices (27.7% and 35.1%, absolute difference [AD] 7.3%, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.73,

153 rn Africa than in black women in any region (absolute difference [AD] from black women in western Afr

154 Mean absolute difference after normalization was smaller than

155 The mean (SD) absolute difference and percentage difference between th

156 n comparison with actual values, the average absolute difference and the mean squared error for MD fo

157 Absolute differences and percentage changes in IPD incid

158 reatment when applied to all risk levels (6% absolute difference at 15 years), emphasizing the import

159 ] 0.94, 95% CI 0.90-0.98; p=0.0033), with an absolute difference at 5 years of 3.1% (95% CI 1.3-4.9)

160 therapy (HR 1.22, 1.05-1.42; p=0.0098), with absolute differences at 5 years of -5.8% (-11.9 to 0.3)

161 ractionated group (HR 0.83, 0.74-0.92), with absolute differences at 5 years of 8.1% (3.4 to 12.8) an

162 cally meaningful efficacy was defined as 30% absolute difference between groups.

163 ence and prevalence of HF were apparent, the absolute difference between most and least deprived redu

164 The absolute prediction error (absolute difference between predicted and achieved refra

165 The absolute difference between risk-adjusted mortality rate

166 We used a non-inferiority margin of 4.5% (absolute difference between rivaroxaban and fondaparinux

167 The absolute difference between sides in individual patients

168 The mean +/- standard deviation absolute difference between the CT and (3)He MR imaging

169 Mean absolute difference between the IOL axis at the 3-month

170 Change in MD (DeltaMD) was defined as the absolute difference between the MD values of 2 consecuti

171 ct volume (r = 0.73, p < 0.0001); the median absolute difference between the observed and predicted v

172 oup and 51% (45-57) in the once-daily group (absolute difference between the treatment groups 5.3% [9

173 ght regions of interest as percentage of the absolute difference between these values relative to the

174 As a reference, the mean absolute difference between two Cirrus scans on the same

175 The absolute differences between calculated and manufacturer

176 secondary end points, the least-square mean absolute differences between groups all favored eliglust

177 Across all cases, the mean and absolute differences between the algorithm and manual se

178 If the absolute differences between the percentages of examinat

179 nd within similar geographic areas, although absolute differences between these outcomes at VA and no

180 erall survival was seen with exemestane; the absolute difference (between exemestane and tamoxifen) a

181 The data corresponded to an absolute difference (between exemestane and tamoxifen) a

182 decreased in controls, resulting in a -3.1% absolute difference by echocardiography (p = 0.035) and

183 bstantial to almost perfect, and the average absolute difference (Delta) from the reference observer

184 ) and attenuated lung function decline (mean absolute difference for change in postbronchodilator for

185 (172 of 360 patients) in the control group (absolute difference for intervention vs. control, 14 per

186 meter (LVEDD) after 5 years, measured as the absolute difference from baseline, which was evaluated b

187 ith no patients in the active control group (absolute difference from control group 15.4%, 95% CI 7.6

188 g modalities, OCT recorded the smallest mean absolute difference from the reference measurement with

189 better with combined FFDM and tomosynthesis (absolute differences from 0.003 to 0.052).

190 y donor but with marked heterogeneity in the absolute differences (I = 95.9%, P < 0.001).

191 There was a 29% absolute difference in 5-year OS between the high- and l

192 The absolute difference in 5-year survival (blacks, 55.9%; w

193 The absolute difference in 5-year survival between black and

194 atching on presentation characteristics, the absolute difference in 5-year survival was 4.4% (95% CI,

195 For the most common SPMs in AYAs, the absolute difference in 5-year survival was 42% lower for

196 The absolute difference in ADCs (right branch - left branch)

197 h seemed to have increased risk for both CD (absolute difference in age-adjusted incidence, 6 cases p

198 son between normalized A-scan profiles, mean absolute difference in amplitude in percentage was measu

199 methylated CpGs (DMCs, adjusted p < 0.01 and absolute difference in average beta-value > 0.15), of wh

200 The absolute difference in cumulative incidence of type 2 DM

201 ncidence of acute kidney injury was similar (absolute difference in incidence, 0%; 95% confidence int

202 ment-by-covariate interaction tests, and the absolute difference in life-years of survival in clinica

203 the placebo group had livebirths (p=0.7406; absolute difference in livebirth rate 1.71% [-6.37 to 9.

204 th 286 (53%) in the placebo group (p=0.0984; absolute difference in livebirth rate 5.09% [95% CI -0.8

205 (53%) of 250 in the placebo group (p=0.0446; absolute difference in livebirth rate 9.20% [0.51 to 17.

206 The primary outcome was absolute difference in local recurrence in the conserved

207 The absolute difference in mortality between patients with a

208 requentist analyses yielded similar results (absolute difference in mortality with ZMapp, -15 percent

209 clinical outcomes significantly favoured MT (absolute difference in mRS 0-2 of 22% and adjusted OR 4.

210 preferences should be considered because the absolute difference in outcome between strategies may be

211 1-0.63; p<0.0001), with a 26% (95% CI 13-39) absolute difference in patients who avoided permanent co

212 T images was computed as the normalized mean absolute difference in PET signal intensity between a me

213 n, poorest wealth quintile and rural groups (absolute difference in prevalence percentage points betw

214 other was in the worst-performing quartile (absolute difference in readmission rate, 2.0 percentage

215 A significant absolute difference in response rates was observed at mo

216 monotherapy, respectively (127/187 v 90/203; absolute difference in risk (adr), 23.6%; 95% CI, 14% to

217 .20-2.46; p=0.0006 for interaction), but the absolute difference in risk of livebirth was smaller (0.

218 oup (relative risk, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.3 to 1.7; absolute difference in risk, -0.4 percentage points; 95%

219 group and in 1 (0.1%) in the control group (absolute difference in risk, 0 percentage points; 95% CI

220 6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4 to 6.8; absolute difference in risk, 0.3 percentage points; 95%

221 d in 42 men (11.4%) assigned to observation (absolute difference in risk, 4.0 percentage points; 95%

222 245 of 367 (66.8%) assigned to observation (absolute difference in risk, 5.5 percentage points; 95%

223 The absolute difference in survival did not change after pat

224 The absolute difference in the 3-year progression-free survi

225 ll brain regions, there was a less than 0.04 absolute difference in the average BP(ND) values calcula

226 Absolute difference in the change between groups was 9.1

227 Compared with minimum follow-up, the absolute difference in the percentage of patients treate

228 6 months (70% vs. 55%, p = 0.031), giving an absolute difference in the primary endpoint of 15% (95%

229 Compared with LMWH, the absolute difference in the proportion of VTE was 1.07% (

230 nferiority was determined by calculating the absolute difference in the risk of the primary outcome;

231 nferiority was determined by calculating the absolute difference in the risk of the primary outcome;

232 ifference in the ADC value, thickness or the absolute difference in thickness between the two groups.

233 The absolute difference in this survival rate between these

234 However, no absolute differences in cytokine production between the

235 regression coefficients that corresponded to absolute differences in DNA methylation (expressed in %5

236 Absolute differences in geometric mean urinary 3-PBA con

237 Absolute differences in life expectancy, healthy life ex

238 Absolute differences in loads were typically greatest in

239 Estimated 5-year absolute differences in local relapse compared with the

240 Absolute differences in nonaccess site bleeding were neg

241 normal RR intervals (SDRR) and percentage of absolute differences in normal RR intervals greater than

242 NIMs or hazard ratios that reflected larger absolute differences in OS or PFS between arms.

243 adequate control of blood pressure (adjusted absolute differences in proportions of enrollees in the

244 However, absolute differences in richness are still likely to cha

245 s to assess, respectively, relative risk and absolute differences in risk.

246 of the EDCs were associated with negligible absolute differences in SRS scores (</= 1.5).

247 The percentage absolute differences in the ablation measurements betwee

248 ched BALB/c mice, and it was correlated with absolute differences in the generation of TNF in the col

249 The objective was to compare absolute differences in the prevalence of Indigenous-rel

250 The absolute differences in the primary endpoint rates betwe

251 Absolute differences in the rates of any breastfeeding r

252 specific geometric mean titre ratios and the absolute differences in three strain-specific seroconver

253 Therefore, absolute differences in VBD between FFDM, DBT, and MR im

254 omparing the root mean square (RMS) and mean absolute difference (MAD) between the model estimates an

255 Mean absolute differences (MADs) and correlations were used t

256 ore intensive glucose control resulted in an absolute difference of -0.90% (95% CI -1.22 to -0.58) in

257 .6%) had full-professor appointments, for an absolute difference of -16.7% (95% CI, -17.3% to -16.2%)

258 om 19 [23.17%, 90% CI 15.51-30.83]), with an absolute difference of 0.88% (90% CI -10.13 to 11.89).

259 This is an absolute difference of 1.37 per 100,000, representing an

260 in 252 (6.6%) in the glargine group, for an absolute difference of 1.7 percentage points (rate ratio

261 dds ratio, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.27-0.45), with an absolute difference of 10%.

262 There was an absolute difference of 13.5 percentage points (95% CI, 5

263 in the once-every-3-weeks arm, leading to an absolute difference of 14.6% (95% CI, 5.7% to 23.5%); P

264 bation than in the placebo group (47.7%); an absolute difference of 19.3% (95% CI, 5.0%, 33.6%) repre

265 20.39%, 90% CI 13.86-26.92]) groups, with an absolute difference of 2.06% (90% CI -7.46 to 11.58).

266 using a margin of noninferiority equal to an absolute difference of 25%.

267 e assessed control group to 41% (77 of 187) (absolute difference of 3%).

268 with greater incident cognitive impairment: absolute difference of 4.0% (95% CI, -1.2% to 9.2%) at y

269 ) in the bone marrow group (P=0.29), with an absolute difference of 5 percentage points (95% CI, -3 t

270 %) assigned to receive placebo (P = .49); an absolute difference of 5% (95% CI, -9% to 19%).

271 ears after randomization and a between-group absolute difference of 7% as the noninferiority margin.

272 490 (83.7%) of 30 456 non-PHS-IR kidneys-an absolute difference of 7%.

273 plus macrolide combination therapy, with an absolute difference of 7.6% (1-sided 90% CI upper limit,

274 e assessed control group to 41% (77 of 187) (absolute difference of 8%).

275 All absolute difference of temperature pairs between tempera

276 compared with esophageal temperature with an absolute difference of temperature pairs equal to or low

277 e -0.00 degrees C +/- 0.36 degrees C with an absolute difference of temperature pairs equal to or low

278 The absolute difference of the area of EZ loss on test-retes

279 g two subjects with missing data, the median absolute difference of the total 3 day melamine excretio

280 opy compared with a control population, with absolute differences of -7.4 percentage points (95% CI,

281 formulae, with median (interquartile range) absolute differences of 28.4 (13.1, 50.2) ml/min, 37.7 (

282 The absolute differences of 5% and 2%, respectively, were st

283 ine characteristics associated with a >/=10% absolute difference or a >/=50% increase in flare rates

284 to emergency departments for minor problems (absolute difference: - pound767,976, - pound1,130,767 to

285 0.1%) and 7.9% (95% CI, 3.9%, 12.0%) larger (absolute difference) than white men.

286 The absolute difference was -1.53 events per 100 person-year

287 The absolute difference was -6% (95% CI, -17.1 to 5.1), excl

288 val, 0.78-0.94); in patients without DM, the absolute difference was 0.7% (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% co

289 0.43) mm(3) with the automated RPE tool; the absolute difference was 1.42 (0.43) mm(3).

290 For the intention-to-treat population, the absolute difference was 1.6% (95% CI, -0.9% to 4.1%); th

291 terval [CI], 0.41 to 0.77; P=0.001), and the absolute difference was 11.0 percentage points (95% CI,

292 3.51) mm(2) with the automated RPE tool; the absolute difference was 2.63 (2.5) mm(2).

293 rimary arrhythmia: 25 mm (95% CI, 22-28)-the absolute difference was 7-9 mm.

294 r in elevated than in ambient plots, and the absolute difference was larger than the difference above

295 ightly underestimated this estimate, but the absolute difference was only +/-0.2 percentage points.

296 that in the other three groups, although the absolute difference was within the 5-percentage-point ma

297 Median absolute differences were 39% (0.17 h(-1)) for Tier 1, 1

298 Median absolute differences were greater in severely obese pati

299 Absolute differences were less than 3 percentage points.

300 versus blood DNA samples, respectively, but absolute differences were small.