MS decreases the larger amplitude distribution in adult rats. by Jesús David Ayala-Rodríguez (17364296)

Change in Demoralization Scale (DSII) by Treatment Group. by Benjamin R. Lewis (22279166)

Subjects:

Change in Watt’s Connectedness Scale, Subscales by Treatment Group. by Benjamin R. Lewis (22279166)

Subjects:

Change in QIDS-SR-16 and MBI-HSS-MP by Treatment Group. by Benjamin R. Lewis (22279166)

Subjects:

Change in Watt’s Connectedness Scale (WCS), General Connectedness by Treatment Group. by Benjamin R. Lewis (22279166)

Subjects:

The wound appearance of different groups during the period of study (a) and the percentage of wound reduction in treated groups on different days (b). by Omid Mehrpour (9385929)

Subjects:

Significant achievement in reduction of maternal and neonatal deaths. by Ruoyan Gai Tobe (102986)

Lab parameters–Significant reduction in means. by Harleen Kaur (288288)

“…Adjuvant homoeopathic medicines were given in the treatment group and SOC was given to both groups. The duration of oxygen support was compared as the primary outcome. …”

Primary and secondary efficacy end points (intention-to-treat population). by Benjamin R. Lewis (22279166)

Subjects:

Demographic and clinical characteristics of participants at baseline. by Benjamin R. Lewis (22279166)

Subjects:

Study-related adverse events. by Benjamin R. Lewis (22279166)

Subjects:

Study flow chart. by Benjamin R. Lewis (22279166)

Subjects:

Study CONSORT diagram. by Benjamin R. Lewis (22279166)

Subjects:

Averaged contrast sensitivity parameter data (Mean and SD) for the MC and PC pathways by age group. by Xiaohua Zhuang (11890694)

Subjects:

Results of a meta-analysis of the surgery risk factors: A: Number of implants: there was no significant difference in number of implants between two groups (1 vs > 1); B: Reduction: there was significant difference in reduction between two groups (reduction vs no reduction); C: Reduction method: there was significant difference in reduction method between two groups (closed vs open); D: Delayed surgery: there was no significant difference in delayed surgery between two groups (≤24h vs > 24h); E: Capsular decompression: there was no significant difference in capsular decompression between two groups (decompression vs no decompression). by Zihang Xu (4028183)

“…<p>Results of a meta-analysis of the surgery risk factors: A: Number of implants: there was no significant difference in number of implants between two groups (1 vs > 1); B: Reduction: there was significant difference in reduction between two groups (reduction vs no reduction); C: Reduction method: there was significant difference in reduction method between two groups (closed vs open); D: Delayed surgery: there was no significant difference in delayed surgery between two groups (≤24h vs > 24h); E: Capsular decompression: there was no significant difference in capsular decompression between two groups (decompression vs no decompression).…”

Comparison of upper and lower arch crowding between premolar extraction group and the mandibular third molar extraction groups. by Lijuan Liu (136685)

Subjects:

Matrix crosslinking decreases cell migration persistence. by Michael Pamonag (12295175)

A noxious temperature decrease without a prior increase produces a subtly larger decrease in pain intensity. by Benedict J. Alter (9745466)

Highlights the anatomical sites with significant volume reduction or a tendency towards volume reduction, found in this study. by José Thiago de Souza de Castro (13839986)

Correlations of cytokines that significantly change between the pre-infusion and post-infusion blood draws pearson’s correlation between cytokine pairs is indicated by color and si... by Jordan K. Abbott (8934239)

Subjects: