ライフサイエンスコーパス: publication

1 Publication bias was assessed via Begg's and Egger's tests an

2 Publication bias was not evident (Egger P = .28); heterogenei

3 Publication bias was not evident (Egger P = .51); heterogenei

4 gh frequency instruments had been evaluated before the 1985 publication "Reproducibility and Validity of a Semiquantitati

5 ber 1, 2013) and after (February 1, 2014, to April 1, 2015) publication of the 2013 ACC/AHA guideline among 4 mutually ex

6 After publication of the original article [1], it was noticed that

7 igh-intensity statin and nonstatin LLT use before and after publication of the 2013 ACC/AHA guideline.

8 .0 (11.9) years among 1116472 patients (39.8% female) after publication of the guideline.

9 pinions (PCOs) offer direction to the ASCO membership after publication or presentation of potential practice-changing da

10 ion, preparation and analysis; risk assessment analysis and publication) phases.

11 onetheless, effects are small, inflated by risk of bias and publication bias, and particularly unstable at follow-up.

12 Heterogeneity was high, and publication bias could not be excluded.

13 ttle information exists regarding utilization or associated publication of articles once clinical trial data have been wi

14 6 (12.1) years among 1105356 patients (40.2% female) before publication of the guideline and 70.0 (11.9) years among 1116

15 n the ASCVD cohort, such a trend was already present before publication of the guideline.

16 h the impact of NAC and xanthine was probably influenced by publication bias/small-study effect.

17 Duplicate publication data, studies lacking data on SMR grade and its c

18 d to serve in that capacity, measures the influence of each publication on its respective area of research.

19 rce and a software infrastructure that promotes and extends publication and re-analysis of scientific image data.

20 eterogeneity was addressed with I(2) index, controlling for publication bias and quality of study.

21 erated random-effects models for analysis and evaluated for publication bias.

22 The adjusted hazard ratio for publication was 1.79 (95% confidence interval, 1.20-2.67) in

23 oducible and statistically significant results required for publication quality data.

24 The authors have requested to withdraw this manuscript from publication because the study was not conducted in full accor

25 Somehow, there is limited publication with follow-up longer than 3 years.

26 As far as we know, this report is the maiden publication on highly sensitive TU sensor based on the CMO NP

27 No publication bias was identified.

28 as been characterized in only a small number of apes and no publication to date has examined the degree of natural variat

29 ournals to require authentication testing as a condition of publication.

30 There was evidence of publication bias, but the effect size barely varied after adj

31 el plot and the Egger's test (p=0.44) showed no evidence of publication bias.

32 ifficulty in keeping the review up to date with the pace of publication of new research.

33 The HTML version was correct from the time of publication.

34 The original publication of this Article included analysis of virus and mi

35 A previous publication from this lab explored the antitrypanosomal activ

36 sults were then compared to the conclusions of our previous publication which used Cs and Li as traditional ISTDs.

37 te linkage map graphics, none are freely available, produce publication quality figures, are open source and can run on a

38 tomized by variable as first versus subsequent publication, publication before versus after STARD introduction, STARD end

39 A recent publication has shown that anti-glucocorticoid-induced TNFR f

40 design consideration introduced by the authors in a recent publication, was varied between experiments; edaphic and mean

41 ntly, regardless of geographical settings and year of study publication, inconsistencies were noted in healthcare profess

42 es were dichotomized by variable as first versus subsequent publication, publication before versus after STARD introducti

43 excess of significant findings, our analyses would suggest publication bias as a possible reason.

44 The publication is an excellent model of how to integrate data on

45 advertently highlighted the author surnames and omitted the publication date.

46 Since the publication of findings from the Women's Health Initiative th

47 rs from theoretical to clinical proof of principle with the publication of a first-in-man phase I/II dose escalation clin

48 the widely used Lego Education EV3 core set alone, and this publication includes building and experiment instructions to

49 Upon publication of the original article [1], it was noted that re

50 on and subgroup analyses were performed to evaluate whether publication year, functional MR imaging paradigm, magnetic fi