Search alternatives:
significant decrease » significant increase (Expand Search), significantly increased (Expand Search)
significantly mean » significantly less (Expand Search), significantly mediate (Expand Search), significantly impact (Expand Search)
significant decrease » significant increase (Expand Search), significantly increased (Expand Search)
significantly mean » significantly less (Expand Search), significantly mediate (Expand Search), significantly impact (Expand Search)
-
1681
-
1682
-
1683
-
1684
-
1685
-
1686
-
1687
-
1688
-
1689
-
1690
-
1691
Demographics of the study population.
Published 2024“…</p><p>Results</p><p>Based on the final clinical diagnosis, 79 patients with iPD and 16 disease controls were included. The mean OBH was significantly smaller in iPD than in disease controls (<i>p</i> < 0.0001). …”
-
1692
Table 3 -
Published 2024“…</p><p>Results</p><p>Based on the final clinical diagnosis, 79 patients with iPD and 16 disease controls were included. The mean OBH was significantly smaller in iPD than in disease controls (<i>p</i> < 0.0001). …”
-
1693
-
1694
Opioid consumption data.
Published 2025“…No significant difference was observed in the mean percentage of prescribed MMEs leftover between the two cohorts (Orthopaedic 47% vs. …”
-
1695
Prescription data.
Published 2025“…No significant difference was observed in the mean percentage of prescribed MMEs leftover between the two cohorts (Orthopaedic 47% vs. …”
-
1696
Refill rate by surgical specialty.
Published 2025“…No significant difference was observed in the mean percentage of prescribed MMEs leftover between the two cohorts (Orthopaedic 47% vs. …”
-
1697
Noncontinuous data on opioid use.
Published 2025“…No significant difference was observed in the mean percentage of prescribed MMEs leftover between the two cohorts (Orthopaedic 47% vs. …”
-
1698
Renal outcomes of both treatment groups.
Published 2025“…Participants in the multifactorial group achieved a significant mean difference in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (mean difference = −0.14, 95% CI: −0.27–0.001, P < 0.03), and significant adjusted mean difference of eGFR levels difference (3.93 mL/min/1.73 m<sup>2</sup>, 95% CI: 1.27–6.58, P < 0.01) at study completion compared to those in the control group. …”
-
1699
-
1700