S8 File - by Martha R. Smith (20410184)

“…Five of the 11 studies that evaluated hepatic steatosis reported an absolute decrease of 1% to 3%. In the nine studies that evaluated liver chemistry, no significant changes were observed.…”

Study populations of included studies. by Martha R. Smith (20410184)

“…Five of the 11 studies that evaluated hepatic steatosis reported an absolute decrease of 1% to 3%. In the nine studies that evaluated liver chemistry, no significant changes were observed.…”

Future research directions. by Martha R. Smith (20410184)

“…Five of the 11 studies that evaluated hepatic steatosis reported an absolute decrease of 1% to 3%. In the nine studies that evaluated liver chemistry, no significant changes were observed.…”

PRISMA flow diagram. by Martha R. Smith (20410184)

“…Five of the 11 studies that evaluated hepatic steatosis reported an absolute decrease of 1% to 3%. In the nine studies that evaluated liver chemistry, no significant changes were observed.…”

S9 File - by Martha R. Smith (20410184)

“…Five of the 11 studies that evaluated hepatic steatosis reported an absolute decrease of 1% to 3%. In the nine studies that evaluated liver chemistry, no significant changes were observed.…”

S7 File - by Martha R. Smith (20410184)

“…Five of the 11 studies that evaluated hepatic steatosis reported an absolute decrease of 1% to 3%. In the nine studies that evaluated liver chemistry, no significant changes were observed.…”

Participant characteristics of included studies. by Martha R. Smith (20410184)

“…Five of the 11 studies that evaluated hepatic steatosis reported an absolute decrease of 1% to 3%. In the nine studies that evaluated liver chemistry, no significant changes were observed.…”

Preference for the EIA – conjoint results. by Mehdi Mourali (10170245)

“…A randomized conjoint experiment and a follow-up choice experiment revealed that support for the EIAs decreased sharply as their accuracy gap grew, although impact parity was prioritized more when ETAs produced large outcome discrepancies. …”

Marginal means – Pooled across scenarios. by Mehdi Mourali (10170245)

“…A randomized conjoint experiment and a follow-up choice experiment revealed that support for the EIAs decreased sharply as their accuracy gap grew, although impact parity was prioritized more when ETAs produced large outcome discrepancies. …”

Sample attribute table. by Mehdi Mourali (10170245)

“…A randomized conjoint experiment and a follow-up choice experiment revealed that support for the EIAs decreased sharply as their accuracy gap grew, although impact parity was prioritized more when ETAs produced large outcome discrepancies. …”

Subgroup analysis – Political affiliation. by Mehdi Mourali (10170245)

“…A randomized conjoint experiment and a follow-up choice experiment revealed that support for the EIAs decreased sharply as their accuracy gap grew, although impact parity was prioritized more when ETAs produced large outcome discrepancies. …”

Sample scenario description. by Mehdi Mourali (10170245)

“…A randomized conjoint experiment and a follow-up choice experiment revealed that support for the EIAs decreased sharply as their accuracy gap grew, although impact parity was prioritized more when ETAs produced large outcome discrepancies. …”

AMCEs – Pooled across scenarios. by Mehdi Mourali (10170245)

“…A randomized conjoint experiment and a follow-up choice experiment revealed that support for the EIAs decreased sharply as their accuracy gap grew, although impact parity was prioritized more when ETAs produced large outcome discrepancies. …”

Methodological flowchart. by Mehdi Mourali (10170245)

“…A randomized conjoint experiment and a follow-up choice experiment revealed that support for the EIAs decreased sharply as their accuracy gap grew, although impact parity was prioritized more when ETAs produced large outcome discrepancies. …”

Preference for the EIA vs. ETA across scenarios. by Mehdi Mourali (10170245)

“…A randomized conjoint experiment and a follow-up choice experiment revealed that support for the EIAs decreased sharply as their accuracy gap grew, although impact parity was prioritized more when ETAs produced large outcome discrepancies. …”

Frequency of tobacco smoking among smokers. by Prasanna Herath (20714794)

Subjects:

Correlation of lung function parameters with smoking variables. by Prasanna Herath (20714794)

Subjects:

Anthropometric characteristics of smokers and non-smokers. by Prasanna Herath (20714794)

Subjects:

Respiratory clinical characteristics of smokers and non-smokers. by Prasanna Herath (20714794)

Subjects:

Effect of the smoking factor on lung function parameters (FVC, FEV1, PEF, FEF 25_75). by Prasanna Herath (20714794)

Subjects: