1 ed using Wilcoxon signed rank test with a value of p < 0.
05 considered statistically significant.
2 and Pearson Correlation tests were performed, with p < 0.
05 considered statistically significant.
3 participants at 95% confidence interval and p value < 0.
05 considered statistically significant.
4 lyzed using the x(2) test, with a P value of less than 0.
05 considered statistically significant.
5 ference in means with 95% confidence interval and p
values (
considered statistically significant when p < 0.05).
6 A modified p value of <0.001
was considered statistically significant.
7 erroni-corrected significance level of less than 0.0016
was considered statistically significant.
8 To adjust for multiple comparisons, P</=0.01
was considered statistically significant.
9 A P value less than 0.05
was considered statistically significant.
10 A p value < 0.05
was considered statistically significant.
11 P <0.05
was considered statistically significant.
12 P-value <0.05
was considered statistically significant.
13 Any P value < 0.05
was considered statistically significant.
14 the analysis were all two-sided, and a p-value of <0.05
was considered statistically significant.
15 A p value of less than 0.05
was considered statistically significant.
16 A P value < .05
was considered statistically significant.
17 P < .05
was considered statistically significant.
18 p<0.05
was considered statistically significant.
19 P < 0.05
was considered statistically significant.
20 risons were performed using Student t test, and P <0.05
was considered statistically significant.
21 A P < .05
was considered statistically significant.
22 A p value less than 0.05
was considered statistically significant.
23 A p value <0.05
was considered statistically significant.
24 A P value < 0.05
was considered statistically significant.
25 A P-value of 0.05
was considered statistically significant.
26 A P-value of less than 0.05
was considered statistically significant.
27 A p-value < 0.05
was considered statistically significant.
28 A p-value less than 0.05
was considered statistically significant.
29 A p-value of < 0.05
was considered statistically significant.
30 A two-sided p-value < 0.05
was considered statistically significant.
31 A value of p < 0.05
was considered statistically significant.
32 A 2-sided P<0.05
was considered statistically significant.
33 Adjusted P value <0.05
was considered statistically significant.
34 Group comparisons were performed and P <0.05
was considered statistically significant.
35 Two tailed p<0.05
was considered statistically significant.
36 Variables with P-value <=0.05
was considered statistically significant.
37 A p value of < 0.05
was considered statistically significant.
38 A 1-sided P<0.10
was considered statistically significant.
39 Associations with a P value <.001
were considered statistically significant after multiple compariso
40 P <0.05
were considered statistically significant.
41 used to compare area measurements and P values of <.05
were considered statistically significant.
42 P values <0.05
were considered statistically significant.
43 performed using a software program, and P values <0.05
were considered statistically significant.
44 P values less than 0.05
were considered statistically significant.
45 Differences with P < .05
were considered statistically significant.
46 Associations with a p-value <0.05
were considered statistically significant.
47 The p values of less than 0.05
were considered statistically significant.
48 Associations
were considered statistically significant at a Bonferroni correcte
49 Differences between the two study groups
were considered statistically significant for p-values less than 0
50 Odds ratios
were considered statistically significant at P < .05 when 95% conf