Examples of using Differences were significant in English and their translations into Portuguese
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
-
Medicine
-
Financial
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
-
Official/political
These differences were significant.
However, when considered independently, the differences were significant.
These differences were significant in both trials.
With regard to age group, differences were significant.
Differences were significant for a p< 0.05.
People also translate
However, none of the differences were significant.
These differences were significant when NF was compared to NE1 or NE2 p.
With regard to place of occurrence, differences were significant p< 0.001.
The differences were significant at days 90 and 180 after schedule completion Table 3.
For the time spent on walking track, the differences were significant for Groups 1, 2 and 3 p.
Differences were significant in the comparisons between intact and operated tibiae on Groups 30 and 90 p.
For groups 3 and 4, the differences were significant in all comparisons.
Differences were significant in the comparisons between intact and operated tibiae in all follow-up periods p.
For the variable time spent on walking track, the differences were significant in all the comparisons p.
For the PFI, the differences were significant for the control group and for Groups 1 and 2 p.
However, no statistical analysis was conducted to verify if these differences were significant due to the small number of data.
In the third year, differences were significant and favorable to the intervention in all transitions.
Four patients needed IV bolus ephedrine and 5 patients needed IV bolus atropine in Group P. In none of the patients in Group B, hypotension andbradycardia were observed. These differences were significant between groups p 0.024 and p 0.011 respectively.
These differences were significant for all of the spirometry parameters except the FEV1/FVC ratio and PEF.
Statistical analysis by means of the Fisher's exact test showed that the differences were significant for standing still p=0.006 and collaborating spontaneously p=0.015, with significance level at 5.
When differences were significant, the Tukey test was used to identify the differences. .
The ANOVA Analysis of Variance test showed that there were no periods when differences were significant with p-value=0,5547 in five minutes, p-value=0,6305 in ten minutes and p-value=0,0556 in 30 minutes.
The differences were significant for comparisons between intact and operated tibiae at each follow-up period p.
The prevalence of vitamin A deficiency was higher in children aged less than or equal to 34 months, enrolled at the day care center less than three months, low height for the age andwho did not receive the mega dose of vitamin A, however these differences were significant only for the child's age variable Table 1.
For intact tibiae, differences were significant in the comparison between Groups 30 and 90 and between 60 and 90 p.
Baseline MIP, baseline MEP, and MEP measured at weeks 4 and 8 were significantly lower than the predicted values published by Neder et al. for MIP -120± 11 cmH2O andMEP 129± 12 cmH2O, and the differences were significant p< 0.05 for all. No significant difference was found between MIP measured in weeks 4 and 8.
For operated tibiae, differences were significant in the comparison between Groups 30 and 60, and between 60 and 90 p.
These differences were significant between groups for the left ear, with an average lowest threshold of the Control Group.
Statistical analysis with Fisher's test showed that differences were significant for pushing p=0.005, clinging to their parents p=0.000, asking for cuddling p=0.024, and muscle stiffness p=0.002.
Differences were significant both for operated and intact tibiae in the comparison between Groups 30 and 90, and between 60 and 90 p.