Antibodies used for flow cytometry. by Shanhe Liu (5251313)

“…</p><p>Results</p><p>Flow cytometry analysis revealed a significantly higher apoptosis rate in AN-LSCs compared to LSCs (p < 0.0001). …”

The incidence rate of adverse reactions. by Xuqin Du (8803772)

“…Compared to standard treatment, QJHTD significantly improved pulmonary function, with increases in FEV1 (MD = 0.32, 95% CI [0.25, 0.38], <i>p </i>= 0.000), FVC (MD = 0.30, 95% CI [0.22, 0.37], <i>p </i>= 0.000), FEV1/FVC (MD = 5.58, 95% CI [4.81, 6.34], <i>p </i>= 0.000), and PaO₂ (MD = 9.62, 95% CI [6.17, 13.08], <i>p </i>= 0.000), and a decrease in PaCO₂ (MD = -9.12, 95% CI [–11.96, –6.28], <i>p </i>= 0.000). …”

The PRISMA study flowchart. by Xuqin Du (8803772)

“…Compared to standard treatment, QJHTD significantly improved pulmonary function, with increases in FEV1 (MD = 0.32, 95% CI [0.25, 0.38], <i>p </i>= 0.000), FVC (MD = 0.30, 95% CI [0.22, 0.37], <i>p </i>= 0.000), FEV1/FVC (MD = 5.58, 95% CI [4.81, 6.34], <i>p </i>= 0.000), and PaO₂ (MD = 9.62, 95% CI [6.17, 13.08], <i>p </i>= 0.000), and a decrease in PaCO₂ (MD = -9.12, 95% CI [–11.96, –6.28], <i>p </i>= 0.000). …”

Forest plot for FEV1/FVC. by Xuqin Du (8803772)

“…Compared to standard treatment, QJHTD significantly improved pulmonary function, with increases in FEV1 (MD = 0.32, 95% CI [0.25, 0.38], <i>p </i>= 0.000), FVC (MD = 0.30, 95% CI [0.22, 0.37], <i>p </i>= 0.000), FEV1/FVC (MD = 5.58, 95% CI [4.81, 6.34], <i>p </i>= 0.000), and PaO₂ (MD = 9.62, 95% CI [6.17, 13.08], <i>p </i>= 0.000), and a decrease in PaCO₂ (MD = -9.12, 95% CI [–11.96, –6.28], <i>p </i>= 0.000). …”

Primer pairs used for qPCR. by Shanhe Liu (5251313)

“…</p><p>Results</p><p>Flow cytometry analysis revealed a significantly higher apoptosis rate in AN-LSCs compared to LSCs (p < 0.0001). …”

Forest plot for clinical efficacy. by Xuqin Du (8803772)

“…Compared to standard treatment, QJHTD significantly improved pulmonary function, with increases in FEV1 (MD = 0.32, 95% CI [0.25, 0.38], <i>p </i>= 0.000), FVC (MD = 0.30, 95% CI [0.22, 0.37], <i>p </i>= 0.000), FEV1/FVC (MD = 5.58, 95% CI [4.81, 6.34], <i>p </i>= 0.000), and PaO₂ (MD = 9.62, 95% CI [6.17, 13.08], <i>p </i>= 0.000), and a decrease in PaCO₂ (MD = -9.12, 95% CI [–11.96, –6.28], <i>p </i>= 0.000). …”

Forest plot for FEV1. by Xuqin Du (8803772)

“…Compared to standard treatment, QJHTD significantly improved pulmonary function, with increases in FEV1 (MD = 0.32, 95% CI [0.25, 0.38], <i>p </i>= 0.000), FVC (MD = 0.30, 95% CI [0.22, 0.37], <i>p </i>= 0.000), FEV1/FVC (MD = 5.58, 95% CI [4.81, 6.34], <i>p </i>= 0.000), and PaO₂ (MD = 9.62, 95% CI [6.17, 13.08], <i>p </i>= 0.000), and a decrease in PaCO₂ (MD = -9.12, 95% CI [–11.96, –6.28], <i>p </i>= 0.000). …”

The excluded and included studies were listed. by Xuqin Du (8803772)

“…Compared to standard treatment, QJHTD significantly improved pulmonary function, with increases in FEV1 (MD = 0.32, 95% CI [0.25, 0.38], <i>p </i>= 0.000), FVC (MD = 0.30, 95% CI [0.22, 0.37], <i>p </i>= 0.000), FEV1/FVC (MD = 5.58, 95% CI [4.81, 6.34], <i>p </i>= 0.000), and PaO₂ (MD = 9.62, 95% CI [6.17, 13.08], <i>p </i>= 0.000), and a decrease in PaCO₂ (MD = -9.12, 95% CI [–11.96, –6.28], <i>p </i>= 0.000). …”

Forest plot for PaCO₂. by Xuqin Du (8803772)

“…Compared to standard treatment, QJHTD significantly improved pulmonary function, with increases in FEV1 (MD = 0.32, 95% CI [0.25, 0.38], <i>p </i>= 0.000), FVC (MD = 0.30, 95% CI [0.22, 0.37], <i>p </i>= 0.000), FEV1/FVC (MD = 5.58, 95% CI [4.81, 6.34], <i>p </i>= 0.000), and PaO₂ (MD = 9.62, 95% CI [6.17, 13.08], <i>p </i>= 0.000), and a decrease in PaCO₂ (MD = -9.12, 95% CI [–11.96, –6.28], <i>p </i>= 0.000). …”

Forest plot for PaO₂. by Xuqin Du (8803772)

“…Compared to standard treatment, QJHTD significantly improved pulmonary function, with increases in FEV1 (MD = 0.32, 95% CI [0.25, 0.38], <i>p </i>= 0.000), FVC (MD = 0.30, 95% CI [0.22, 0.37], <i>p </i>= 0.000), FEV1/FVC (MD = 5.58, 95% CI [4.81, 6.34], <i>p </i>= 0.000), and PaO₂ (MD = 9.62, 95% CI [6.17, 13.08], <i>p </i>= 0.000), and a decrease in PaCO₂ (MD = -9.12, 95% CI [–11.96, –6.28], <i>p </i>= 0.000). …”

Image 5_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.png by Haixiao Chen (12565087)

“…In both unmatched and matched cohorts, the CLBRs were significantly decreased (unmatched cohort: 66.3% versus 55%, P<0.001, adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.76,0.91; matched cohort: 59% versus 55%, P = 0.003, adjusted OR 0.84, 95%CI: 0.75,0.94). …”

Image 9_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.tiff by Haixiao Chen (12565087)

“…In both unmatched and matched cohorts, the CLBRs were significantly decreased (unmatched cohort: 66.3% versus 55%, P<0.001, adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.76,0.91; matched cohort: 59% versus 55%, P = 0.003, adjusted OR 0.84, 95%CI: 0.75,0.94). …”

Image 1_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.jpeg by Haixiao Chen (12565087)

“…In both unmatched and matched cohorts, the CLBRs were significantly decreased (unmatched cohort: 66.3% versus 55%, P<0.001, adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.76,0.91; matched cohort: 59% versus 55%, P = 0.003, adjusted OR 0.84, 95%CI: 0.75,0.94). …”

Image 2_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.tiff by Haixiao Chen (12565087)

“…In both unmatched and matched cohorts, the CLBRs were significantly decreased (unmatched cohort: 66.3% versus 55%, P<0.001, adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.76,0.91; matched cohort: 59% versus 55%, P = 0.003, adjusted OR 0.84, 95%CI: 0.75,0.94). …”

Image 8_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.tiff by Haixiao Chen (12565087)

“…In both unmatched and matched cohorts, the CLBRs were significantly decreased (unmatched cohort: 66.3% versus 55%, P<0.001, adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.76,0.91; matched cohort: 59% versus 55%, P = 0.003, adjusted OR 0.84, 95%CI: 0.75,0.94). …”

Image 7_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.tiff by Haixiao Chen (12565087)

“…In both unmatched and matched cohorts, the CLBRs were significantly decreased (unmatched cohort: 66.3% versus 55%, P<0.001, adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.76,0.91; matched cohort: 59% versus 55%, P = 0.003, adjusted OR 0.84, 95%CI: 0.75,0.94). …”

Image 10_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.tiff by Haixiao Chen (12565087)

“…In both unmatched and matched cohorts, the CLBRs were significantly decreased (unmatched cohort: 66.3% versus 55%, P<0.001, adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.76,0.91; matched cohort: 59% versus 55%, P = 0.003, adjusted OR 0.84, 95%CI: 0.75,0.94). …”

Image 4_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.tiff by Haixiao Chen (12565087)

“…In both unmatched and matched cohorts, the CLBRs were significantly decreased (unmatched cohort: 66.3% versus 55%, P<0.001, adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.76,0.91; matched cohort: 59% versus 55%, P = 0.003, adjusted OR 0.84, 95%CI: 0.75,0.94). …”

Image 6_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.tiff by Haixiao Chen (12565087)

“…In both unmatched and matched cohorts, the CLBRs were significantly decreased (unmatched cohort: 66.3% versus 55%, P<0.001, adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.76,0.91; matched cohort: 59% versus 55%, P = 0.003, adjusted OR 0.84, 95%CI: 0.75,0.94). …”

Image 3_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.tiff by Haixiao Chen (12565087)

“…In both unmatched and matched cohorts, the CLBRs were significantly decreased (unmatched cohort: 66.3% versus 55%, P<0.001, adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.76,0.91; matched cohort: 59% versus 55%, P = 0.003, adjusted OR 0.84, 95%CI: 0.75,0.94). …”