PRISMA-based flowchart for the selection of studies risk of bias and GRADE quality of outcomes. by Hong Tang (191022)

Join-point regression analysis of the statistically significant linear decrease in use of antidepressants, antipsychotics, psychostimulants and nootropic drugs, anxiolytics, sedatives and hypnotics during the observed time period. by Jelena Filimonovic (22305307)

Point-mass model. by Guilong Xu (13281902)

The risk of bias assessment. by Flor Isela Torres-Rojo (22097369)

Subjects:

Quality and risk of bias assessment. by Zihao He (8780582)

Risk of bias. by Franklin Okechukwu Dike (21021070)

Subjects:

Risk of bias across studies. by Yaqin Wang (188672)

Perioperative factors associated with differences in adjusted hospitalization costs; all displayed factors are significantly associated with increased or decreased adjusted costs. by Saad Mallick (17283479)

Risk of bias assessment. by Delai Zheng (18468980)

Positional cloning of <i>qNN1</i> on chromosome 16. by Xinxin Li (281237)

Risk of bias graph. by Ye Tao (326899)

“…Subgroup analysis based on intervention duration revealed that programs lasting more than 10 weeks were associated with significant improvements [SMD = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.31–0.66, I² = 65.1%, p < 0.05], whereas no significant effects were found in interventions lasting 10 weeks or less [SMD = 0.14, 95% CI = –0.26–0.53, I² = 35.6%, p > 0.05]. …”

Risk of bias summary. by Ye Tao (326899)

“…Subgroup analysis based on intervention duration revealed that programs lasting more than 10 weeks were associated with significant improvements [SMD = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.31–0.66, I² = 65.1%, p < 0.05], whereas no significant effects were found in interventions lasting 10 weeks or less [SMD = 0.14, 95% CI = –0.26–0.53, I² = 35.6%, p > 0.05]. …”

Standardized bias of covariates. by Dan Ma (699928)

Trend of TI values with age: The TI values decreased significantly with the increase of age, * p<0.01 vs other groups. by Yunmeng Da (707943)

Funnel plots for the publication bias of the included studies based on different outcome indicators. by Weijian Zhou (1592806)

Metacognitive and predictive bias results. by Sarah M. Tashjian (5615795)

“…Significant differences were only identified in Study 3 with reduced bias for the protection acquisition variant compared to the punishment avoidance variant. …”

Risk of bias assessment diagram. by Yucai Chang (21029966)

“…In comparison to the NS group, the PL group exhibited a significantly lower incidence of DGF (OR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.51 to 0.86, P =  0.002) and reduced serum chloride (MD: -8.87, 95% CI: -13.50 to -4.25, P = 0.0002) as well as serum sodium(MD: -1.08, 95% CI: -1.54 to -0.61, P <  0.00001), while blood pH(MD: 0.05, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.07, P <  0.00001), bicarbonate (MD: 2.09, 95% CI: 1.21 to 2.97, P = 0.005), and base excess levels (MD: 2.42, 95% CI: 0.72 to 4.11, P <  0.00001) were significantly elevated. …”

Pitfalls of merging only considering end-points. by Almiqdad Elzein (13141038)

Posterior distribution for the standardized effect size of difference between significant and non-significant results for reviewers, given the used priors. by Jasmine Muradchanian (11177488)

Subjects:

Posterior distribution for the standardized effect size of difference between significant and non-significant results for authors, given the used priors. by Jasmine Muradchanian (11177488)

Subjects: