Theoretical isobologram, curve shift, and combination index analyses of drug–drug interactions. by Rachel E. Ham (9930443)

“…(A) Isoboles connect the points of EC₅₀ of each drug, A and B. …”

Nutrient content and accumulation in mini lettuce as a function of fertigation management strategies by Laércio da S Pereira (14370597)

Data_Sheet_1_Sporulation conditions influence the surface and adhesion properties of Bacillus subtilis spores.pdf by Audrey Hamiot (16916949)

The evaluation of spatial learning and memory by Morris water maze test. by Hamideh Asadi nejad (18563628)

DCA selectively affects early and late AMP expression patterns in Drosophila surviving sepsis. by Veli Bakalov (3481280)

Supplementation of grazing beef cattle with narasin by Luiz Guilherme Mezzena Gobato (10379150)

Dough rheology and the impact of zinc sulfate on the quality of cookies by Muhammad USMAN (10465843)

Reference and current Trophic Level Index of New Zealand lakes: benchmarks to inform lake management and assessment by Jonathan M. Abell (7110209)

Data_Sheet_1_Progressive Microstructural Deterioration Dictates Evolving Biomechanical Dysfunction in the Marfan Aorta.pdf by Cristina Cavinato (11429941)

Fermentative profile of corn silages with the inclusion of chemical additives or bacterial inoculant by J.B. Zanella (14344477)

Data_Sheet_1_Viruses Without Borders: Global Analysis of the Population Structure, Haplotype Distribution, and Evolutionary Pattern of Iris Yellow Spot Orthotospovirus (Family Tosp... by Afsha Tabassum (11090219)

Image7_An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of early oral feeding vs. traditional oral feeding after gastric cancer surgery.tif by Dong Xu (21616)

“…Hospital days [weighted mean difference (WMD), −1.72; 95% confidence interval (CI), −2.14 to −1.30; p<0.00001), the time to first flatus (WMD, −0.72; 95% CI, −0.99 to −0.46; p<0.00001), and hospital costs (WMD, −3.78; 95% CI, −4.50 to −3.05; p<0.00001) were significantly decreased in the EOF group. …”

Image8_An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of early oral feeding vs. traditional oral feeding after gastric cancer surgery.tif by Dong Xu (21616)

“…Hospital days [weighted mean difference (WMD), −1.72; 95% confidence interval (CI), −2.14 to −1.30; p<0.00001), the time to first flatus (WMD, −0.72; 95% CI, −0.99 to −0.46; p<0.00001), and hospital costs (WMD, −3.78; 95% CI, −4.50 to −3.05; p<0.00001) were significantly decreased in the EOF group. …”

Image9_An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of early oral feeding vs. traditional oral feeding after gastric cancer surgery.tif by Dong Xu (21616)

“…Hospital days [weighted mean difference (WMD), −1.72; 95% confidence interval (CI), −2.14 to −1.30; p<0.00001), the time to first flatus (WMD, −0.72; 95% CI, −0.99 to −0.46; p<0.00001), and hospital costs (WMD, −3.78; 95% CI, −4.50 to −3.05; p<0.00001) were significantly decreased in the EOF group. …”

Image3_An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of early oral feeding vs. traditional oral feeding after gastric cancer surgery.tif by Dong Xu (21616)

“…Hospital days [weighted mean difference (WMD), −1.72; 95% confidence interval (CI), −2.14 to −1.30; p<0.00001), the time to first flatus (WMD, −0.72; 95% CI, −0.99 to −0.46; p<0.00001), and hospital costs (WMD, −3.78; 95% CI, −4.50 to −3.05; p<0.00001) were significantly decreased in the EOF group. …”

Image4_An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of early oral feeding vs. traditional oral feeding after gastric cancer surgery.tif by Dong Xu (21616)

“…Hospital days [weighted mean difference (WMD), −1.72; 95% confidence interval (CI), −2.14 to −1.30; p<0.00001), the time to first flatus (WMD, −0.72; 95% CI, −0.99 to −0.46; p<0.00001), and hospital costs (WMD, −3.78; 95% CI, −4.50 to −3.05; p<0.00001) were significantly decreased in the EOF group. …”

Image1_An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of early oral feeding vs. traditional oral feeding after gastric cancer surgery.tif by Dong Xu (21616)

“…Hospital days [weighted mean difference (WMD), −1.72; 95% confidence interval (CI), −2.14 to −1.30; p<0.00001), the time to first flatus (WMD, −0.72; 95% CI, −0.99 to −0.46; p<0.00001), and hospital costs (WMD, −3.78; 95% CI, −4.50 to −3.05; p<0.00001) were significantly decreased in the EOF group. …”

Image6_An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of early oral feeding vs. traditional oral feeding after gastric cancer surgery.tif by Dong Xu (21616)

“…Hospital days [weighted mean difference (WMD), −1.72; 95% confidence interval (CI), −2.14 to −1.30; p<0.00001), the time to first flatus (WMD, −0.72; 95% CI, −0.99 to −0.46; p<0.00001), and hospital costs (WMD, −3.78; 95% CI, −4.50 to −3.05; p<0.00001) were significantly decreased in the EOF group. …”

Image5_An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of early oral feeding vs. traditional oral feeding after gastric cancer surgery.tif by Dong Xu (21616)

“…Hospital days [weighted mean difference (WMD), −1.72; 95% confidence interval (CI), −2.14 to −1.30; p<0.00001), the time to first flatus (WMD, −0.72; 95% CI, −0.99 to −0.46; p<0.00001), and hospital costs (WMD, −3.78; 95% CI, −4.50 to −3.05; p<0.00001) were significantly decreased in the EOF group. …”

Image2_An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of early oral feeding vs. traditional oral feeding after gastric cancer surgery.tif by Dong Xu (21616)

“…Hospital days [weighted mean difference (WMD), −1.72; 95% confidence interval (CI), −2.14 to −1.30; p<0.00001), the time to first flatus (WMD, −0.72; 95% CI, −0.99 to −0.46; p<0.00001), and hospital costs (WMD, −3.78; 95% CI, −4.50 to −3.05; p<0.00001) were significantly decreased in the EOF group. …”