ライフサイエンスコーパス: risk difference

1 CI 1.3%-8.5%, p = 0.009; based on z-test for risk difference).

2 other than overdose, with a modest absolute risk difference.

3 undary of the 95% confidence interval of the risk difference.

4 arators yielded no statistically significant risk differences.

5 incidence rate ratios and relative risks, or risk differences.

6 postrandomization) was 0.0253 versus 0.0200 (risk difference 0.0053 [95% CrI: -0.0190 to 0.0273]), ac

7 e Ciaglia multiple dilator technique, pooled risk difference 0.12 (95% CI, 0.02-0.23).

8 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

9 eight (3%) of 251 (2-6) in the 14 day group (risk difference 0.8% [95% CI -2.8 to 4.5]), meeting the

10 occurred, respectively, in 4.5% versus 3.7% (risk difference 0.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -2.4

11 33, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.58, p = 0.391; absolute risk difference 0.9%, 95% CI -1.12 to 2.88).

12 (1.7% vs. 2.3%; p = 0.42; p value comparing risk differences = 0.03).

13 ted a complete elimination of the disparity (risk difference = -0.87 per 1,000 births; 95% confidence

14 success), and noninferiority was confirmed (risk difference, 0.010; 95% confidence interval, -0.097

15 fspring versus 4.96% in unexposed offspring (risk difference, 0.02% [95% CI, -0.26% to 0.30%]).

16 ealed for the predefined inferiority margin (risk difference, 0.029; 95% confidence interval, -0.074

17 TI: 0.05 for azithromycin, 0.08 for placebo; risk difference, 0.03 [95% CI, 0.00-0.06]).

18 in nonaccess site bleeding were negligible (risk difference, 0.04%; 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.

19 negligible for transradial PCI (GPI-adjusted risk difference, 0.09%; 95% CI: -0.32%, 0.50%).

20 idging group and 0.3% in the bridging group (risk difference, 0.1 percentage points; 95% confidence i

21 33 patients [12.8%], respectively; absolute risk difference, 0.1 percentage points; 95% confidence i

22 group [7.9%] vs 33/407 in TLH group [8.1%]; risk difference, 0.2% [95% CI, -3.7% to 4.0%]; P = .93)

23 onfidence interval [CI], 0.64-1.80; absolute risk difference, 0.2%; 95% CI, -1.0 to 1.3; P<0.001 for

24 In the across-hospital (risk difference, 0.3% [95% CI, -0.1% to 2.5%]) and withi

25 unit discharge, in 108 (8.3%) vs 100 (7.8%) (risk difference, 0.55%; 95% CI, -1.5% to 2.6%) at hospit

26 95% CI, -0.1% to 2.5%]) and within-hospital (risk difference, 0.6% [95% CI, -0.2% to 3.0%]) matched a

27 group [6.8%] vs 30/407 in TLH group [7.4%]; risk difference, 0.6% [95% CI, -3.0% to 4.2%]; P = .76).

28 ts assigned to the commercial mesh (absolute risk difference, 0.7 percentage points; 95% confidence i

29 1%) in the long-term storage group (absolute risk difference, 0.7 percentage points; 95% confidence i

30 argin, 3.80%) compared with DP-DES (absolute risk difference, 0.78%; -1.93% to 3.50%; P for noninferi

31 pital discharge, in 105 (8.1%) vs 94 (7.3%) (risk difference, 0.78%; 95% CI, -1.3% to 2.8%) at 1 mont

32 at 1 month, and in 110 (8.5%) vs 98 (7.6%) (risk difference, 0.86%; 95% CI, -1.2% to 3.0%) at 6 mont

33 and 7.4% in the itraconazole group (absolute risk difference, 0.9 percentage points; 95% confidence i

34 hanical CPR and 305 (23.7%) with manual CPR (risk difference, -0.05%; 95% CI, -3.3% to 3.2%; P > .99)

35 .57%), and no survival benefit was apparent (risk difference, -0.10%; 95% CI: -0.24%, 0.05%).

36 , 2.92% to 3.03%) in the no-screening group (risk difference, -0.14% [CI, -0.41 to 0.16]).

37 in and benzyl penicillin arms, respectively (risk difference, -0.3% [95% confidence interval, -5.0% t

38 (relative risk, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.78; risk difference, -0.4%; 95% CI, -0.8% to 0.1%).

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

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

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

42 as compared with the control group (adjusted risk difference, -0.7%; 95% CI, -1.3 to -0.1; P=0.03) an

43 .6%) in the biolimus-eluting group (absolute risk difference, -0.78% [upper limit of 1-sided 95% conf

44 for insulin glargine U100 (McNemar P = .35; risk difference, -0.8% [95% CI, -2.2% to 0.5%]).

45 ated with no difference in 1-year mortality (risk difference, -0.8%; P=0.76) or bleeding (risk differ

46 irudin was because of the lower use of GPIs (risk difference, -0.84%; 95% CI: -1.11%, -0.57%), and no

47 96 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .63-1.45]; risk difference, -0.9 [95% CI, -4.5 to 2.7]), as well as

48 1%) of 378 in the tamsulosin group (adjusted risk difference 1.3% [95% CI -5.7 to 8.3]; p=0.73) and 3

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

50 81; p=0.013; 0.6% oseltamivir, 1.7% placebo, risk difference -1.1%, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.3).

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

52 ared with 65 (8%) of 782 infants in group B (risk difference -1.5%, 95% CI -4.3 to 1.3) and 64 (8%) o

53 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

54 alteparin 27/143 [18.9%; 95% CI 12.8-26.3%]; risk difference -1.8% [95% CI -10.6% to 7.1%)) and on-tr

55 A compared with 51 (6%) infants in group B (risk difference -1.9%, 95% CI -4.4 to 0.1), 65 (8%) in g

56 he ISTp-DP (29.9%) and IPTp-SP (28.8%) arms (risk difference = 1.08% [95% CI -3.25% to 5.41%]; all wo

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

58 o improved disease-specific quality of life (risk difference = 1.41, 95% CI 1.04-1.79).

59 %) assigned to the commercial mesh (absolute risk difference, 1.0 percentage point; 95% CI, -9.5 to 1

60 sk of sternal wound infection was increased (risk difference, 1.07%; 95% CI, 0.15-2.07).

61 f 1 or 2 occurred in 98 (7.5%) vs 82 (6.4%) (risk difference, 1.18%; 95% CI, -0.78% to 3.1%) at inten

62 idence interval [CI], 1.37 to 4.30; adjusted risk difference, 1.52 deaths per 1000 births; 95% CI, 0.

63 diazepam and 17.6% given lorazepam; absolute risk difference, 1.6%; 95% CI, -9.9% to 6.8%).

64 the standard-blood group had died (absolute risk difference, 1.7 percentage points; 95% confidence i

65 reater in the PICC group in across-hospital (risk difference, 1.7% [95% CI, 0.1%-3.3%]) and within-ho

66 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11 to 2.01; risk difference, 1.7%; 95% CI, 0.3 to 3.0) but a decreas

67 178 children (73.6%) in the custom-made arm (risk difference, 1.8%; 95% CI, -7.1% to 10.8%).

68 0.92 [95% CI, 0.68-1.25]; adjusted absolute risk difference, -1.0% [95% CI, -10.2% to 8.1%]) and in

69 hospital (instrumental variable estimate of risk difference, -1.1%; 95% CI, -2.8 to 0.5; P = .20).

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

71 e largest for transfemoral PCI (GPI-adjusted risk difference, -1.11%; 95% CI: -1.43%, -0.80%) and neg

72 vs 36 in the saline group (14.9%) (absolute risk difference, -1.7 [95% CI, -8.0 to 4.6], P = .60).

73 crease in minor neonatal morbidity (adjusted risk difference, -1.7%; 95% CI, -2.6 to -0.9; P<0.001).

74 ng women with low-risk pregnancies (adjusted risk difference, -1.7%; 95% CI, -3.0 to -0.3; P=0.03) bu

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

76 nterval [CI], 0.80 to 0.99; P=0.04; adjusted risk difference, -1.8%; 95% CI, -3.8 to -0.2).

77 red with 7.9% in the placebo group (absolute risk difference, -1.9% [95% CI, -4.4% to 0.6%]).

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

79 ; relative risk: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.24; risk difference: -1.72; 95% CI: -6.70 to 3.25; p = 0.50)

80 (172 [57.0%] vs 141 [47.0%] women; absolute risk difference 10.0%, 95% CI 2.0-17.9; p=0.0136).

81 n in the no dalteparin group (13/141 [9.2%]; risk difference 10.4%, 95% CI 2.3-18.4; p=0.01).

82 1.64, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.05, p<0.001; absolute risk difference 11.2%, 95% CI 6.44 to 16.1).

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

84 %-40.0%) in the standard medical care group (risk difference, 12%; 95% CI, 3.8%-20.3%; OR, 1.71; 95%

85 38 of 286 infants (13.3%) in the CPAP group (risk difference, 12.3 percentage points; 95% confidence

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

87 erienced postextubation respiratory failure (risk difference, 12.9%; 95% CI, 6.6% to infinity) [corre

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

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

90 [95% CI, 11.3%-17.9%]) and within-hospital (risk difference, 14.0% [95% CI, 10.5%-17.6%]) matched an

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

92 for any adverse outcome in across-hospital (risk difference, 14.6% [95% CI, 11.3%-17.9%]) and within

93 .73; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.94; P = .02; absolute risk difference, -14%, 95% CI, -25% to -2%).

94 transfer included severe abdominal injuries (risk difference, 15.9%; 95% CI, 9.4%-22.3%), urban teach

95 p experienced successful treatment (adjusted risk difference, -15.6%; 95% CI, -28.0% to -3.3%; P = .0

96 more often than medical trials [43% vs 27%, risk difference 16% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5%-26

97 edated (66.9% vs 50%, respectively; absolute risk difference, 16.9%; 95% CI, 6.1% to 27.7%).

98 sted OR 2.34 [2.06-2.66], p<0.0001; adjusted risk difference 2.9 per 100 patients [95% CI 2.3-3.6], p

99 143 [19.6%] vs no dalteparin 24/141 [17.0%]; risk difference +2.6% [95% CI -6.4 to 11.6%]).

100 latent yaws and 101 (94%) with active yaws (risk difference -2.0%, 95% CI -8.3 to 4.3), meeting the

101 (19%) infants in the oral amoxicillin group (risk difference -2.6%, 95% CI -6.0 to 0.8).

102 the simvastatin-monotherapy group (absolute risk difference, 2.0 percentage points; hazard ratio, 0.

103 7% [95% CI, 0.1%-3.3%]) and within-hospital (risk difference, 2.1% [95% CI, 0.3%-3.8%]) matched analy

104 risk difference, -0.8%; P=0.76) or bleeding (risk difference, 2.3%; P=0.33) and with significant redu

105 ate of target-vessel failure, 5.6% vs. 2.9%; risk difference, 2.7 percentage points [95% confidence i

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

107 group presented to the clinic and had CHTC (risk difference 22%, 95% CI 9-35; p=0.001) during the 10

108 e control group (21 of 63 [33.3%]) (absolute risk difference, 22.1 percentage points [95% CI, 5.5 to

109 in the onabotulinumtoxinA group (35% vs 11%; risk difference, -23%; 95% CI, -33% to -13%; P < .001).

110 1.47; 95% CI, 1.30-1.66; I2 = 42%; absolute risk difference, 24%; 95% CI, 12%-37% after 1 year).

111 teaching hospital vs non-teaching hospital (risk difference, 26.2%; 95% CI, 15.2%-37.2%), and annual

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

113 907 patients in the heparin group (absolute risk difference 3.0%; relative risk [RR] 1.52, 95% CI 1.

114 ived soy RUSF (874 of 1086; 80.5%; P < 0.04; risk difference 3.4%, 95% CI: 0.3%, 6.6%).

115 9 in the standard care alone group had died (risk difference 3.6% [95% CI -0.8 to 8.1]).

116 p<0.0001; 9.9% oseltamivir vs 6.2% placebo, risk difference 3.7%, 95% CI 1.8-6.1) and vomiting (RR 2

117 p=0.0001; 4.9% oseltamivir vs 8.7% placebo, risk difference -3.8%, 95% CI -5.0 to -2.2) and also few

118 5% confidence interval, 0.51-2.53; P = 0.76; risk difference, 3.1%; 95% confidence interval, -16.2 to

119 cillin arm and 25 (5.9%) in the placebo arm (risk difference, 3.1; P value .04).

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

121 nonmesh repair vs laparoscopic mesh repair: risk difference, 3.4% [95% CI, 2.7%-4.1%]).

122 I, 15.2%-37.2%), and annual ED visit volume (risk difference, 3.4%; 95% CI, 1.6%-5.3% higher for ever

123 CPAP groups (15.5% and 11.5%, respectively; risk difference, 3.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.7 to

124 for age and cycle-threshold value (adjusted risk difference, -3 percentage points; 95% CI, -13 to 8)

125 .22), and treatment preference (92.% vs 89%; risk difference, -3%; 95% CI, -16% to 10%; P = .49).

126 0.92 [95% CI, 0.68-1.26]; adjusted absolute risk difference, -3.1% [95% CI, -12.3% to 6.1%]).

127 % vs 24.5%; RR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.76 to 0.99]; risk difference, -3.2% [95% CI, -6.2% to -0.3%]) and sho

128 the mixed-effects regression model (adjusted risk difference, -3.2%; 95% CI, -8.7% to 2.2%; P = .25).

129 P = .73), air leaks (1.9% vs 2.5%; 95% CI of risk difference, -3.3 to 4.5; P = .70), and bronchopulmo

130 ients (12.9%) in the bare-metal-stent group (risk difference, -3.6 percentage points; 95% confidence

131 tive risk [RR], 0.88 [95% CI, 0.80 to 0.97]; risk difference, -3.6% [95% CI, -6.3% to -0.9%]; P = .01

132 pulmonary dysplasia (4.4% vs 5.1%; 95% CI of risk difference, -3.9 to 7.2; P = .79).

133 mpared with 9,399 control subjects (absolute risk difference, 30 per 1,000 patient years [py]; adjust

134 in surgical and medical trials (44% vs 40%, risk difference 4% (95% CI: -5% to 14%); P = 0.373).

135 p<0.0001; 8.0% oseltamivir vs 3.3% placebo, risk difference 4.7%, 95% CI 2.7-7.3).

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

137 patients]; RR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.69 to 0.90]; risk difference, -4.4% [95% CI, -6.8% to -2.0%]; P < .00

138 % vs 44.1%; RR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.05]; risk difference, -4.6% [95% CI, -10.9% to 1.7%]).

139 tients (9.8%) in the bare-metal-stent group (risk difference, -4.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -6.9 to

140 en mesh repair (12.3% [95% CI, 10.4%-14.3%]; risk difference, -4.8% [95% CI, -9.1% to -0.5%]) and for

141 itazone group vs 19.6% for placebo (absolute risk difference, -4.9% [95% CI, -8.6% to 1.2%]).

142 .74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-2.88; risk difference: 4.0%, 95% CI 0.4-7.6%], as was the rate

143 of 7066 patients (38%) in the control group (risk difference 41.9%, 95% CI 40.1-43.8).

144 ng those in the NS group (15 of 384 [3.9%]) (risk difference, 5.0%; 95% CI, 1.6%-8.4%; P = .005), wit

145 8% (open nonmesh repair vs open mesh repair: risk difference, 5.3% [95% CI, 4.4%-6.2%]; open nonmesh

146 otocol P=0.09) and superior to BMS (absolute risk difference, -5.16; -8.32 to -2.01; P=0.0011).

147 vs 9.5% of infants, respectively (95% CI of risk difference, -6.0% to 8.6% [within the noninferiorit

148 pic mesh repair (10.6% [95% CI, 9.2%-12.1%]; risk difference, -6.5% [95% CI, -10.6% to -2.4%]) compar

149 13.4%-20.8%, respectively; McNemar P = .002; risk difference, -6.8%; 95% CI, -10.8% to -2.7%).

150 control deaths; HR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.40-2.58; risk difference, 67.1; 95% CI, 30.1-117.3) excess deaths

151 gher in the ISTp-DP arm (48.7% versus 40.8%; risk difference = 7.85%, [95% CI 3.07%-12.63%]; all wome

152 t-plasma group and 38% in the control group (risk difference, -7 percentage points; 95% confidence in

153 scontinued for slow recruitment [18% vs 11%, risk difference 8% (95% CI: 0.1%-16%); P = 0.020].

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

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

156 eduction in target vessel revascularization (risk difference, -8.3%; P<0.0001).

157 for DES versus 23.0% for bare metal stents (risk difference, -8.5%; P<0.001), an implausible finding

158 nd 21.0% in the itraconazole group (absolute risk difference, 9.7 percentage points; 95% CI, 2.8 to 1

159 ed for surfactant (44.3% vs 46.2%; 95% CI of risk difference, -9.8 to 13.5; P = .73), air leaks (1.9%

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

161 The adjusted risk difference (95% CI) was 25.9% (8.3%-44.4%) when rep

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

163 Nevertheless, estimating the standardized risk difference and ratio is straightforward, and inject

164 ary 2014), appraised studies, and calculated risk differences and relative risk ratios (RRR) with 95%

165 ority (margin, 4.5 percentage points for the risk difference) and superiority, was target-lesion fail

166 Risks, risk difference, and number needed to vaccinate were cal

167 hours, 2.79 (95% CI, 1.96 to 3.98), absolute risk difference (ARD) for lower disability scores, 39.2%

168 86 [95% CI, 0.80 to 0.93]; I2 = 0%; absolute risk difference [ARD], -0.40% [95% CI, -0.64% to -0.17%]

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

170 ced a 1.27-fold (95% CI, 1.21-1.34; adjusted risk difference [ARD], 0.23%) increase in the odds of de

171 physical activity (24.6% vs 43.5%; Absolute risk difference [ARD], 18.9% [95% CI,14.7%-23.0%]).

172 tio [OR], 1.57 [95% CI, 1.34-1.84]; absolute risk difference [ARD], 7.6% [95% CI, 4.7%-10.8%]), incid

173 Although absolute risk differences are small and may be partially explaine

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

175 The risk difference associated with glyburide was 2.97% (95%

176 Absolute risk differences at 10 years were calculated to study th

177 The absolute risk differences based on the observed data (full analys

178 A noninferiority margin of risk difference between amoxicillin and benzyl penicilli

179 Risk difference between groups in (1) viral rebound (ie,

180 We hypothesized that, for a first event, a risk difference between the sexes is masked by female ex

181 Adjusted risk differences between stented and nonstented populati

182 culate the pooled incidence rates as well as risk differences between the various treatments.

183 ved small increases in the magnitude of CACE risk differences compared with intention-to-treat estima

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

185 , diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and tobacco use, risk differences comparing participants with vs without

186 Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and risk differences (difference in incidence of death) were

187 The risk differences due to variation in background radiatio

188 Risk differences during the randomized treatment period

189 We calculated a risk difference (excess risk) of TM and ADEM for each va

190 large benefit of IAT decreases; the absolute risk difference for a good outcome is reduced by 6% per

191 The absolute risk difference for babies born before a gestational age

192 ion had similar ability to identify absolute risk difference for CVD as the elastic net models, but p

193 mortalities was 2.2 (95% CI 1.5-3.4) and the risk difference for death at 3 years was 11% (95% CI 5.0

194 ics vs 3.1% for narrow-spectrum antibiotics; risk difference for full matched analysis, 0.3% [95% CI,

195 ics vs 2.7% for narrow-spectrum antibiotics; risk difference for full matched analysis, 1.1% [95% CI,

196 cs vs 25.1% for narrow-spectrum antibiotics; risk difference for full matched analysis, 12.2% [95% CI

197 The risk difference for hepatoxicity comparing isoniazid wit

198 The risk difference for hospitalizations was not significant

199 oorer ability to correctly identify absolute risk difference for serious adverse events.

200 -0.36 to -0.10; P < .001), and the absolute risk difference for the acquisition of cow's milk tolera

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

202 The risk difference for viral rebound was 0.107 (1-sided 95%

203 At 26 weeks, the risk differences for abstinence were, for patch vs varen

204 Potential risk differences for T1a and T1b, including the 1.0-cm t

205 erving of noodles was associated with higher risk (difference in HR: 26.11%; 95% CI: 10.98%, 43.30%).

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

207 The absolute risk difference in the primary outcome and its 95% confi

208 Absolute risk differences in daily mortality rate were 1.42 (95%

209 We did not identify significant risk differences in other meta-analyses.

210 validate risk models for predicting absolute risk difference (increased risk or decreased risk) for C

211 l test result compared with a normal result (risk difference: MPS 20 per 100 patients tested [95% CI,

212 h of 2 exposures together and the sum of the risk differences obtained from reducing the 2 exposures

213 reventive therapy (95% CI 3.4-7.8); absolute risk difference of -0.06% (95% CI -3.05 to 2.94).

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

215 34 patients (99%) in the open surgery group (risk difference of -0.4% [95% CI, -1.8% to 1.0%]; P = .6

216 nd 10.10% under the intervention, yielding a risk difference of -1.57% (95% confidence interval: -3.0

217 28 patients (97%) in the open surgery group (risk difference of -3.7% [95% CI, -7.6% to 0.1%]; P = .0

218 eceived no further therapy, with an absolute risk difference of -3.8 percentage points (95% CI, -8.8

219 16 patients (92%) in the open surgery group (risk difference of -5.4% [95% CI, -10.9% to 0.2%]; P = .

220 08 patients (89%) in the open surgery group (risk difference of -7.0% [95% CI, -12.4% to infinity]; P

221 follow-up were 34 (49%) and 33 (43%), with a risk difference of 0.03 (95% CI, -0.06 to 0.12).

222 he C statistic increasing from 0.65 to 0.69 (risk difference of 0.05; 95% CI, 0.01-0.09).

223 or 6- versus 24-month DAPT, with an absolute risk difference of 0.11% (95% confidence interval: -1.04

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

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

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

227 deaths) was 4.16 (95% CI, 2.27-7.63) with a risk difference of 200 excess deaths (95% CI, 80-420) pe

228 0.75 (95% CI, 0.63-0.89), which equated to a risk difference of 23.2 (95% CI, 10.3-34.1) fewer violen

229 deaths) was 1.65 (95% CI, 1.10-2.46) with a risk difference of 28.9 excess deaths (95% CI, 4.6-65.3)

230 r, with 95 versus 44 events, for an absolute risk difference of 3.0 events (95% CI, 1.6 to 4.5) per 1

231 of those not randomly selected, an adjusted risk difference of 3.0% (95% CI, .7%-5.3%).

232 s during nonmedicated periods, equating to a risk difference of 36.4 (95% CI, 2.1-54.0) fewer violent

233 s during nonmedicated periods, equating to a risk difference of 39.7 (95% CI, 11.3-57.7) fewer violen

234 mong 6,039 nonusers, yielding a standardized risk difference of 4.68 (95% confidence interval: 1.27,

235 1.68; 95% CI, 0.97 to 2.90) for an adjusted risk difference of 4.7 per 1000 person-years (95% CI, -1

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

237 s during nonmedicated periods, equating to a risk difference of 42.8 (95% CI, 2.2-67.6) fewer violent

238 1.36; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.69) for an adjusted risk difference of 45.3 per 1000 person-years (95% CI, 1

239 , the HR was 1.72 (95% CI, 1.24-2.39) with a risk difference of 47.4 excess deaths (95% CI, 15.7-91.4

240 3.70; 95% CI, 1.55 to 8.85) for an adjusted risk difference of 47.5 per 1000 pregnancies (95% CI, 9.

241 ortality was 1.64 (95% CI, 1.26-2.12) with a risk difference of 68.5 excess deaths (95% CI, 28.2-120.

242 D4 count (91% versus 21%), a complier causal risk difference of 70 percentage points (95% CI 42 to 98

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

244 ] 1.96 [95% CI 1.40-2.75]; p=0.0001), with a risk difference of 9.50% (95% CI 4.79-14.16).

245 ed with 4.1% (65/1,583) in the ALMANACH arm (risk difference of clinical failure -1.7, 95% CI -3.0, -

246 Pooled risk difference of tooth loss (RDTL) and weighted mean d

247 lyses were undertaken to estimate the pooled risk difference of tracheal stenosis, bleeding, and woun

248 used to calculate incidence rates (IRs) and risk differences of adjudicated incident HF, CHD, and st

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

250 The effect of treatment as a risk difference on reaching independence (mRS score, 0-2

251 The primary outcome was weighted overall risk difference (percentage decrease in AD prevalence).

252 For cone tests: low resistance, risk difference (RD) 0.86 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.01); moderat

253 sk (RR) 1.12 (95% CI 0.95-1.33; p=0.183) and risk difference (RD) 2.66 (95% CI -1.25 to 6.57; p=0.18)

254 estimates for drinking water contamination (risk difference (RD) = -22% (95% confidence interval (CI

255 nicline group vs 6.9% for the placebo group; risk difference (RD), 25.2% [95% CI, 21.4%-29.0%]; relat

256 red with untreated bed nets (UTNs) using the risk difference (RD).

257 We estimated risk differences (RD) of PTB (reported per 106 pregnanci

258 Adjusted risk differences (RD) were compared across time periods

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

260 or to IPTp with respect to infant mortality (risk difference [RD] -0.05, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.02), low b

261 PT was greater in patients with high scores (risk difference [RD] for score >/=2, -2.05 percentage po

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

263 isk ratio [RR], 0.75 [95% CI, 0.35 to 1.64]; risk difference [RD], -0.02 [95% CI, -0.09 to 0.04]), hy

264 D and/or death (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.76-1.02; risk difference [RD], -0.04; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.01; mode

265 ing for acamprosate was 12 (95% CI, 8 to 26; risk difference [RD], -0.09; 95% CI, -0.14 to -0.04) and

266 with reduced ischemic events (2.7% vs 5.7%; risk difference [RD], -3.0% [95% CI, -4.1% to -2.0%], P

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

268 cumulative 2-y risk of requiring prosthetic (risk difference [RD], 0.21) and endodontic (RD, 0.11) tr

269 ith low-vancomycin MIC (<1.5 mg/L) (adjusted risk difference [RD], 1.6% [95% CI, -2.3% to 5.6%]; P =

270 dds ratio [OR], 3.13 [95% CI, 2.39 to 4.12]; risk difference [RD], 10% [95% CI, 7% to 13%]) and basal

271 isk ratio [RR], 0.67 [95% CI, 0.45 to 1.01]; risk difference [RD], 2.8%; moderate certainty), need fo

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

273 t 500 cells/mm(3) to 12% at 350 cells/mm(3) (risk difference [RD]: 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI]

274 he varenicline-placebo and bupropion-placebo risk differences (RDs) for moderate and severe neuropsyc

275 We report pooled relative risks (RRs) and risk differences (RDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI

276 were used to estimate relative risks (RRs), risk differences (RDs), and numbers needed to treat.

277 atients were compared using percent absolute risk differences (RDs, with 95% CIs).

278 tation has been described previously for the risk difference, relative risk, and odds ratio.

279 ions for natural direct effect bounds on the risk difference scale to provide bounds on the odds rati

280 e, as well as the proportion mediated on the risk difference scale.

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

282 Risk differences under an intervention corresponding to

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

284 The absolute risk difference was -109 per 100,000 patient-years (95%

285 s with preoperative catching or locking, the risk difference was 0.07 (CI, -0.08 to 0.22).

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

287 The risk difference was 0.5 percentage point (95% CI, 0.4-0.

288 The risk difference was 1.9 events per 1000 patients.

289 for oral anticoagulant therapy, the absolute risk difference was 2.5 events per 1000 patients.

290 The adjusted absolute risk difference was 8.7% (95% CI, -10.4% to 27.7%).

291 95% CI, 3.7 to 33.3; P=0.01); the unadjusted risk difference was not significant at the 24-month seco

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

293 The corresponding risk differences were 0.16% (CI, -0.23% to 0.56%) for va

294 Absolute risk differences were 0.2% (95% CI, 0%-0.5%) for a TSB l

295 Absolute risk differences were 0.34 (95% CI, 0.22-0.46) excess ad

296 rtant and statistically significant absolute risk differences were identified only for antibiotic-imp

297 h of 18.6% and 18.8%, respectively (absolute risk difference with EGDT vs. usual care, -0.3 percentag

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 regression to estimate risk ratios (RRs) and risk differences with 95% confidence intervals for the a