1 However, due to oxidation reaction in vivo,
no significant difference between (
64)Cu(I) and (64)Cu(I
2 There were
no significant differences between ACHD and non-ACHD pat
3 and 171+/-87 after adenosine (P<0.07), with
no significant differences between adenosine and mental
4 compared with control eyes (P = .008), with
no significant difference between advanced and intermedi
5 There was
no significant difference between all diets on inflammat
6 were observed in mixed batch, and there was
no significant difference between aluminum and iron elec
7 There were
no significant differences between antidepressants and c
8 ts, low- to very-low-quality RCT data showed
no significant difference between any biologic therapy a
9 There was
no significant difference between any of the models or b
10 le strength and in vitro cytotoxicity showed
no significant difference between AuNP-infused and untre
11 We detected
no significant differences between BDII patients and con
12 lie in a narrow range similar to bone, with
no significant difference between benign and malignant.
13 PET using BKC showed
no significant difference between bioluminescence and en
14 rm estrogen deficiency (34 weeks), there was
no significant difference between bone cells in healthy
15 We detected
no significant differences between bortezomib- and place
16 CP1 to respiratory complex components showed
no significant differences between brown and brite adipo
17 ed Cox regression analysis, there were still
no significant differences between BRS and DES (hazard r
18 We observed
no significant differences between cases and controls in
19 (2 of 14 subjects; 14.3%) treatment arms and
no significant difference between change in Montgomery-A
20 No significant difference between changes in 12 months a
21 There was
no significant difference between ciclosporin and inflix
22 We found
no significant difference between clindamycin and TMP-SM
23 There were
no significant differences between closed-loop and contr
24 There was
no significant difference between control (58 +/- 2%CVCm
25 ion fraction and conventional metrics showed
no significant differences between control and cardiomyo
26 umetric and DTI analysis measurements showed
no significant differences between control and Hdc KO mi
27 al components analysis of the datasets found
no significant differences between conventionally- and o
28 Analysis of journal impact factor showed
no significant difference between correct and incorrect
29 p visits during that interval, and there was
no significant difference between counseling groups.
30 There was
no significant difference between CPAP and MADs in their
31 Likewise, there was
no significant difference between CSF flow measured with
32 No significant differences between DFT versus no-DFT coh
33 There were
no significant differences between diets for HDL cholest
34 There was
no significant difference between DM and DBT with regard
35 There were
no significant differences between donors and nondonors
36 There was
no significant difference between doses for safety and i
37 ences between these groups and controls, but
no significant differences between each other.
38 The primary analysis showed
no significant difference between eculizumab and placebo
39 nts with postinfectious hydrocephalus showed
no significant difference between endoscopic ETV-CPC and
40 There were
no significant differences between European regions in t
41 There was
no significant difference between exiting and nonexiting
42 ts with an elevated d-dimer level, there was
no significant difference between extended-duration betr
43 The LC ranged from 0.43 to 2.53, with
no significant difference between fasting and clamping.
44 within 8 to 30 days (n = 27176), there were
no significant differences between follow-up at 2 months
45 There was
no significant difference between good adherence, poor a
46 Preoperative PNS-O and PNS-P showed
no significant difference between groups (P = 0.267).
47 was 2.7 +/- 2.8 mm (95% CI, 2.2 to 3.4) with
no significant difference between groups (P = 0.40).
48 was 8.5 +/- 3.8 mm (95% CI, 7.6 to 9.3) with
no significant difference between groups (P = 0.73).
49 f 81 patients had cognitive impairment, with
no significant difference between groups (treatment effe
50 placebo group had cognitive impairment, with
no significant difference between groups (treatment effe
51 AMR and Banff scores at 1 and 6 months, with
no significant difference between groups but with a tren
52 There was
no significant difference between groups for any seconda
53 At 52 weeks, we noted
no significant difference between groups for disease pro
54 There was
no significant difference between groups I and III or be
55 In an intention-to-treat analysis, we found
no significant difference between groups in 6-month cumu
56 There was
no significant difference between groups in AR dimension
57 for the primary endpoint, because there was
no significant difference between groups in mean daily b
58 for the primary endpoint, because there was
no significant difference between groups in mean daily b
59 There was
no significant difference between groups in pain-related
60 There was
no significant difference between groups in quality-adju
61 t (IDR 1.39 [95% CI 1.07-1.79]) and we noted
no significant difference between groups in readmission
62 edoke-McMaster, and stroke severity revealed
no significant difference between groups in the primary
63 There was
no significant difference between groups in the primary
64 There was
no significant difference between groups in the primary
65 , fitness, physical activity, and diet, with
no significant difference between groups.
66 Adverse events were rare with
no significant difference between groups.
67 means of 17.6 for GPT and 16.5 for CM, with
no significant difference between groups.
68 ticipants in the clinic referral group, with
no significant differences between groups (p=0.668 for c
69 aker/defibrillator implantation demonstrated
no significant differences between groups after adjustme
70 There were
no significant differences between groups for hemoglobin
71 rocessed by sHLD, dHLD, or HLD/ETO, we found
no significant differences between groups for MDRO or ba
72 At age 18 mo, there were
no significant differences between groups in any scores.
73 There were
no significant differences between groups in baseline ch
74 95% CI, 0.51-0.67; I2 = 0%), but there were
no significant differences between groups in duration of
75 nt of much or very much in CGI-I score, with
no significant differences between groups in either clin
76 There were
no significant differences between groups in FACT-G scor
77 There were
no significant differences between groups in hospitaliza
78 versus recurrent disease groups: There were
no significant differences between groups in incidence o
79 There were
no significant differences between groups in MACE relate
80 There were
no significant differences between groups in nasogastric
81 There were
no significant differences between groups in patients' g
82 No significant differences between groups in rates of ma
83 There were
no significant differences between groups in serotype-sp
84 There were
no significant differences between groups in stridor or
85 % CI, 0.20 to 0.79; P=0.009), but there were
no significant differences between groups in the other s
86 Likewise, there were
no significant differences between groups in the seconda
87 There were
no significant differences between groups in time taken
88 There were
no significant differences between groups in time to ext
89 No significant differences between groups were observed
90 fore surgery, steep and flat keratometry had
no significant differences between groups, and at last f
91 nts showed good periodontal parameters, with
no significant differences between groups.
92 les compared with the all-IPV schedule, with
no significant differences between groups.
93 outh experienced improvement on the CIS with
no significant differences between groups.
94 Liver BCMO1 activity was low, with
no significant differences between groups.
95 e at 90 days) and adverse events, there were
no significant differences between groups.
96 TATION: For the primary outcomes, there were
no significant differences between groups.
97 e of the pyrolysates was highly variable and
no significant difference between HA and FA was found fo
98 Multivariate analysis showed
no significant difference between Haplo-HCT and MSD-HCT
99 ss all animals and activation sequences with
no significant difference between homogeneous and inhomo
100 with central hypersomnolence disorders, with
no significant differences between hypocretin-deficient
101 There were
no significant differences between Imm-RDI and Inc-AA gr
102 In adjusted models, there were
no significant differences between induction groups for
103 We observed
no significant difference between intermittent and conti
104 No significant differences between intervention groups a
105 There was
no significant difference between IOL groups in Rasch-ad
106 microwave pasteurised juice at day 0 however
no significant differences between juices were observed
107 There was
no significant difference between lanicemine and placebo
108 ) of subjects with HCV genotype 1 infection (
no significant difference between ledipasvir/sofosbuvir
109 k densities in the dorsotemporal area showed
no significant difference between left and right eyes fo
110 No significant differences between letrozole and placebo
111 No significant difference between line scans/correspondi
112 , multivariable regression analysis revealed
no significant differences between MACH and GBAE implant
113 as bone fill after 6 months of healing, with
no significant difference between materials.
114 However, there was
no significant difference between mean early PPG and lat
115 There were
no significant differences between men and women in thei
116 s vs individuals with epsilon3/epsilon4, but
no significant differences between men and women with ep
117 nce risk for CHD in offspring was 4.8%, with
no significant differences between men and women with TO
118 There was also
no significant difference between MI size3-slices and MI
119 We also found
no significant differences between migration among coast
120 Results There were
no significant differences between morning and afternoon
121 We hypothesized that there was
no significant difference between MSA as measured by DAS
122 For steatosis degree there was
no significant difference between MSG-obesity group and
123 There is
no significant difference between MT4 and MSP for detect
124 uniformly labeled E. coli peptides indicated
no significant differences between observed and simulate
125 OR], 0.48; 95% CI, 0.25-0.92), but there was
no significant difference between omalizumab and ICS boo
126 d to have a unique mutational signature with
no significant differences between parental alleles, sug
127 Secondary analyses revealed
no significant difference between patient groups in leng
128 There were
no significant differences between patients treated with
129 There were
no significant differences between patients with IBD in
130 In both cohorts, there were
no significant differences between patients with stage I
131 scores during treatment; however, there was
no significant difference between placebo and riluzole o
132 t differences in clinical outcomes, and thus
no significant differences between polypill and comparat
133 s and 1, 2, and 4 weeks after surgery showed
no significant differences between PPC and CCC in cornea
134 ing over $10,000 in income during leave with
no significant difference between procedural and nonproc
135 There were
no significant differences between progression of vascul
136 The null hypothesis of
no significant difference between pulse sequences was as
137 respectively, increased ICAD prevalence with
no significant differences between races.
138 The analysis of variance (alpha=0.05) showed
no significant differences between rate constants of the
139 There were
no significant differences between SCL and RGPL wearing
140 descence throughout the year was noted, with
no significant differences between seasons (P = 0.699).
141 All changes were mild, with
no significant differences between severe and nonsevere
142 Although globally there were
no significant differences between sexes in the proporti
143 There was
no significant difference between SI values measured in
144 We noted
no significant differences between statin users and non-
145 lthough task performance improved over days,
no significant difference between stimulation protocols
146 There were
no significant differences between studies with low vers
147 There was
no significant difference between study arms in 52-week
148 There was
no significant difference between study groups in 60-day
149 There were
no significant differences between study groups in resid
150 No significant difference between subfoveal center point
151 There was
no significant difference between summed PI-RADS scores
152 There are
no significant differences between superior and temporal
153 d survival compared with surgery alone, with
no significant difference between surgery-based multimod
154 tures involving the surgical neck, there was
no significant difference between surgical treatment com
155 In the NOTION trial,
no significant difference between TAVR and SAVR was foun
156 There were
no significant differences between TAVR and SAVR in any
157 No significant difference between TBMES and osteonecrosi
158 ath (4.4% vs. 0.6%, P=0.001), but there were
no significant differences between tenofovir-based ART a
159 There was
no significant difference between the 2 active groups.
160 There was also
no significant difference between the 2 closure methods
161 onths and 1 year after discharge also showed
no significant difference between the 2 groups of patien
162 There was
no significant difference between the 2 groups with rega
163 However, there was
no significant difference between the 2 intervention arm
164 There was
no significant difference between the 2 measures of PHE
165 Statistical analysis showed there was
no significant difference between the ability of the thr
166 There was
no significant difference between the Absorb group and t
167 There was
no significant difference between the area under the cur
168 Experimental data showed that there was
no significant difference between the benchtop protocol
169 llel analysis of 30 cancer patients, to find
no significant difference between the capture efficiency
170 ls (39 eyes) returning after LASIK, we found
no significant difference between the clinically measure
171 There was
no significant difference between the cohorts in the per
172 experienced no discontinuities, and we noted
no significant difference between the CTO and control gr
173 improvement in ACQ score; however, there was
no significant difference between the CYT003 and placebo
174 ess, and the results revealed that there was
no significant difference between the data sets obtained
175 There is
no significant difference between the effect of topical
176 In intention-to-treat analysis, there was
no significant difference between the elafibranor and pl
177 Moreover, we found
no significant difference between the ES for N170 and N2
178 There was
no significant difference between the ETV-CPC group and
179 70) after TIPS placement (all P < .05), with
no significant difference between the first and second p
180 ngth for group 1 and 7.09% for group 2, with
no significant difference between the groups (P = .09).
181 There was
no significant difference between the groups for Unified
182 There was
no significant difference between the groups in terms of
183 There was
no significant difference between the groups in the mean
184 There was
no significant difference between the groups in the rela
185 There was
no significant difference between the groups in their tr
186 There was
no significant difference between the groups with respec
187 There was
no significant difference between the IB or TB conjuncti
188 There was
no significant difference between the levosimendan group
189 male control group (P = .040), and there was
no significant difference between the male MTBI group an
190 is (Fisher's exact test) indicated there was
no significant difference between the methods at the 99%
191 Calibration analysis demonstrated
no significant difference between the model (predicted v
192 ular involvement when compared with SJS, but
no significant difference between the number of moderate
193 There was
no significant difference between the numbers of IFTA or
194 There was
no significant difference between the observed and predi
195 No significant difference between the outcomes of the tw
196 There was
no significant difference between the particle sizes of
197 In an intention-to-treat analysis, there was
no significant difference between the pessary group (465
198 respectively; P = 0.042), whereas there was
no significant difference between the placebo trained an
199 There was
no significant difference between the progesterone group
200 We found
no significant difference between the regions in the pos
201 Analysis demonstrated
no significant difference between the SGS group and the
202 darterectomy versus Stenting Trial, we found
no significant difference between the stenting group and
203 There was
no significant difference between the study groups in th
204 There was
no significant difference between the study groups with
205 In a time-to-event analysis, we found
no significant difference between the supplemental-oxyge
206 There was also
no significant difference between the SUVmax of all DTCs
207 Two-way ANOVA showed
no significant difference between the traditional plate
208 There was
no significant difference between the treatment groups i
209 However, there was
no significant difference between the trial groups eithe
210 There was
no significant difference between the two genotype group
211 There was
no significant difference between the two groups for ven
212 There was
no significant difference between the two groups in OI a
213 ion whereas the duration of vigilance showed
no significant difference between the two habitats.
214 aroxysmal atrial fibrillation, and there was
no significant difference between the two methods with r
215 (p<0.0001 for both groups vs placebo), with
no significant difference between the two seladelpar gro
216 n D. ambigua, but by 20 degrees C, there was
no significant difference between the two species, and a
217 There was
no significant difference between the two study groups i
218 There were
no significant differences between the 2 experimental gr
219 ts at the time of stent thrombosis, we found
no significant differences between the 2 stent groups fo
220 In comparisons of outcomes, we found
no significant differences between the 3-year vs 5-year
221 characteristic curve, was 0.87 to 0.89 with
no significant differences between the 7 more sensitive
222 In addition, there were
no significant differences between the acetylcysteine gr
223 There were
no significant differences between the active and placeb
224 There were
no significant differences between the agriculturalist a
225 There were
no significant differences between the colchicine and pl
226 There were
no significant differences between the early group and t
227 he drought-tolerant PFT; however, there were
no significant differences between the early- and late-s
228 There were
no significant differences between the ganciclovir and p
229 -0.59], p=0.015), but the GAF scores showed
no significant differences between the groups (61.2 [SD
230 There were
no significant differences between the groups (hazard ra
231 of 18 complications occurred, but there were
no significant differences between the groups (P=0.21).
232 inclusion in the 5-year analysis, there were
no significant differences between the groups in clinica
233 There were
no significant differences between the groups in end-exe
234 There were
no significant differences between the groups in the len
235 There were
no significant differences between the groups in the sec
236 However, there were
no significant differences between the groups on cortiso
237 There were
no significant differences between the groups regarding
238 l thromboplastin time showed variability but
no significant differences between the groups.
239 re improved during follow-up, but there were
no significant differences between the groups.
240 However, there were
no significant differences between the intervention arms
241 patient safety climate), whereas there were
no significant differences between the intervention grou
242 brief motivational intervention, there were
no significant differences between the intervention grou
243 For DBP, there were
no significant differences between the intervention grou
244 There were
no significant differences between the Kd values of chit
245 There were
no significant differences between the levosimendan grou
246 A two-sample t test resulted in
no significant differences between the lung injury and h
247 There were
no significant differences between the parenteral group
248 There were
no significant differences between the randomisation gro
249 Paired t tests showed
no significant differences between the reference standar
250 There were
no significant differences between the respective serum
251 No significant differences between the RIPC group and th
252 There were
no significant differences between the statin users and
253 There were
no significant differences between the strawberry and co
254 luded up to 5 years of follow-up, there were
no significant differences between the study groups in t
255 Qualitative image quality analyses revealed
no significant differences between the three CT angiogra
256 ing high-risk genotypes, were detected, with
no significant differences between the treatment groups
257 There were also
no significant differences between the treatment groups
258 No significant differences between the treatment groups
259 There were
no significant differences between the two groups in any
260 There were
no significant differences between the two groups in ter
261 There were
no significant differences between the two groups in the
262 There were
no significant differences between the two groups in the
263 There were
no significant differences between the two interventions
264 h month - baseline) of those scores revealed
no significant differences between the two IT groups, TA
265 over a median of 3 years of follow-up, with
no significant differences between the two treatment gro
266 There were
no significant differences between the two treatment gro
267 's index) and abundance suggested there were
no significant differences between the two types of maiz
268 For arterial procedures, there were
no significant differences between the uninterrupted and
269 There were
no significant differences between the unique variant se
270 ther grade 3 or 4 toxicities were rare, with
no significant differences between the VTD and VCD arms.
271 electron microscopy revealed that there were
no significant differences between the wild-type and mut
272 -specific antibodies as soon as day 12, with
no significant difference between them but with a trend
273 There was
no significant difference between these results and the
274 /mL plasma for one month and since there was
no significant difference between these two, the less co
275 ent ICH and ischaemic stroke after ICH found
no significant differences between these risks.
276 ween those assigned PrEP versus placebo, and
no significant difference between those assigned PrEP an
277 Among patients undergoing CABG, there was
no significant difference between those receiving single
278 analysis with the log-rank test demonstrated
no significant differences between those omitting vs rec
279 In patients undergoing PCI, there were
no significant differences between those receiving drug-
280 ary care at 4 VA medical centers, there were
no significant differences between those with time-limit
281 There was
no significant difference between treatment (N = 408) or
282 Overall, there was
no significant difference between treatment arms in the
283 There was
no significant difference between treatment groups for t
284 We detected
no significant difference between treatment groups for:
285 nths with C25, and 5.3 months with D75, with
no significant differences between treatment arms.
286 In persistent AF, there were
no significant differences between treatment groups for
287 There were also
no significant differences between treatment groups for
288 Similarly, at 16 weeks, there were
no significant differences between treatment groups in c
289 covering and HR for recovering also revealed
no significant differences between treatment groups in e
290 iodontal clinical parameters and OHRQL, with
no significant differences between treatment groups.
291 There was
no significant difference between treatments for any par
292 surface potentials of -42.4 to -46.1mV with
no significant difference between treatments, suggesting
293 solids content decreased during storage with
no significant difference between treatments.
294 vastatin group had virological failure, with
no significant difference between treatments.
295 In the PPAA there was
no significant difference between two hemispheres in eac
296 There was
no significant difference between UC and CD.
297 However, direct evidence found
no significant difference between vision screening in ol
298 There were
no significant differences between vitamin D and placebo
299 In all but 1 of our comparisons,
no significant difference between wildtype and heterozyg
300 However, overall clinical outcome showed
no significant difference between women and men after 1