Search alternatives:
significant decrease » significant increase (Expand Search), significantly increased (Expand Search)
nn decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), mean decrease (Expand Search), gy decreased (Expand Search)
a decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), _ decreased (Expand Search), _ decreases (Expand Search)
significant decrease » significant increase (Expand Search), significantly increased (Expand Search)
nn decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), mean decrease (Expand Search), gy decreased (Expand Search)
a decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), _ decreased (Expand Search), _ decreases (Expand Search)
-
15981
The excluded and included studies were listed.
Published 2025“…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 PaO<sub>2</sub> (MD = 9.62, 95% CI [6.17, 13.08], <i>p </i>= 0.000), and a decrease in PaCO<sub>2</sub> (MD = -9.12, 95% CI [–11.96, –6.28], <i>p </i>= 0.000). …”
-
15982
Forest plot for PaCO<sub>2</sub>.
Published 2025“…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 PaO<sub>2</sub> (MD = 9.62, 95% CI [6.17, 13.08], <i>p </i>= 0.000), and a decrease in PaCO<sub>2</sub> (MD = -9.12, 95% CI [–11.96, –6.28], <i>p </i>= 0.000). …”
-
15983
Forest plot for PaO<sub>2</sub>.
Published 2025“…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 PaO<sub>2</sub> (MD = 9.62, 95% CI [6.17, 13.08], <i>p </i>= 0.000), and a decrease in PaCO<sub>2</sub> (MD = -9.12, 95% CI [–11.96, –6.28], <i>p </i>= 0.000). …”
-
15984
Image 5_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.png
Published 2025“…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). …”
-
15985
Image 9_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.tiff
Published 2025“…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). …”
-
15986
Image 1_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.jpeg
Published 2025“…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). …”
-
15987
Image 2_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.tiff
Published 2025“…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). …”
-
15988
Image 8_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.tiff
Published 2025“…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). …”
-
15989
Image 7_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.tiff
Published 2025“…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). …”
-
15990
Image 10_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.tiff
Published 2025“…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). …”
-
15991
Image 4_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.tiff
Published 2025“…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). …”
-
15992
Image 6_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.tiff
Published 2025“…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). …”
-
15993
Image 3_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.tiff
Published 2025“…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). …”
-
15994
<b>Exploring left lateral decubitus position, and its influence on infant mortality in pregnant women in their third trimester, brought to the emergency through the GVK Ambulance S...
Published 2024“…</p><p dir="ltr">Conclusion:</p><p dir="ltr">Transporting mothers in a Left Lateral Decubitus position may significantly decrease the odds of Infant mortality by 62%; after adjusting for antenatal care visits. …”
-
15995
The impact of excessive DNA amounts used for bisulfite conversion on the amplification efficiency and the methylation level of <i>LINE-1</i> and <i>Alu</i>.
Published 2024“…(<b>D, E</b>) An increase in methylation level of <i>LINE-1</i> (D) and <i>Alu</i> (E) was associated with a decrease in DNA input for bisulfite conversion. …”
-
15996
SEAwise Report on improved predictive models of growth, production and stock quality under different habitat scenarios and incorporating experimental results
Published 2025“…Summer temperature was not a significant driver of the individual growth. …”
-
15997
Chromosomal partitioning is maintained during intracellular UPEC coccobacilli divisions.
Published 2025“…Intensity plot in <b>f</b>, shows FtsZ constriction over 60 min (inset show HupA-RFP fluorescence profiles taken perpendicular to the Z-ring, with no intensity decrease at midcell over the same time interval). …”
-
15998
Soil analysis results of the trial areas.
Published 2025“…While increasing irrigation levels increased oil content, higher nitrogen doses caused a decrease for it. The highest oil content (6.64%) was recorded with 100% irrigation and 0 kg ha ⁻ ¹ N application. …”
-
15999
Local details of carbon storage.
Published 2025“…By 2035, cropland, forest, water, and construction land areas are expected to increase, while grassland and unused land areas are projected to decrease. Under the ecological protection scenario, cropland, forest land, and grassland—major main contributors to carbon storage—will be effectively conserved to some extent. (2) From 2000 to 2020, Xinjiang’s carbon storage capacity exhibited an overall increasing trend, with a cumulative increase of 137.515×10<sup>5</sup> t and a growth rate of 1.58%. …”
-
16000
Land-use type areas in Xinjiang.
Published 2025“…By 2035, cropland, forest, water, and construction land areas are expected to increase, while grassland and unused land areas are projected to decrease. Under the ecological protection scenario, cropland, forest land, and grassland—major main contributors to carbon storage—will be effectively conserved to some extent. (2) From 2000 to 2020, Xinjiang’s carbon storage capacity exhibited an overall increasing trend, with a cumulative increase of 137.515×10<sup>5</sup> t and a growth rate of 1.58%. …”