PMC:6927068 / 9724-11068 JSONTXT

{"project":"0_colil","denotations":[{"id":"31583887-3802833-9165","span":{"begin":330,"end":332},"obj":"3802833"},{"id":"31583887-12958120-9166","span":{"begin":876,"end":878},"obj":"12958120"},{"id":"31583887-11914301-9167","span":{"begin":988,"end":990},"obj":"11914301"},{"id":"31583887-26597972-9168","span":{"begin":1059,"end":1061},"obj":"26597972"},{"id":"31583887-21208779-9169","span":{"begin":1274,"end":1276},"obj":"21208779"}],"text":"Data synthesis and analysis\nRevMan 5.3.0, the standard software provided by the Cochrane Collaboration, was employed to analyze the results of the RCTs. The meta-analysis model was performed when the patients, interventions, controls, and outcomes were the same or similar and the corresponding data were sufficiently homogeneous,74 while results of RCTs were described separately if significant heterogeneity existed. Continuous outcomes were expressed as weighted mean differences (WMDs), and dichotomous data were expressed as relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In the absence of significant heterogeneity, we explored the possible reasons and conducted a sensitive analysis if necessary. Heterogeneity across the trials was identified using both Chi-squared tests as well as I2, considering a value of I2\u003e50% as indicating substantial heterogeneity.75 Funnel plots were generated to detect publication bias when there were more than 10 trials in one comparison.76 When necessary data were available, subgroup analysis was conducted.77 In order to minimize bias in our findings and recommendations, we graded and assessed the available evidence by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Profiler (pro),78,79 with four levels of evidence: high, moderate, low, and very low."}

{"project":"TEST0","denotations":[{"id":"31583887-177-183-9165","span":{"begin":330,"end":332},"obj":"[\"3802833\"]"},{"id":"31583887-231-237-9166","span":{"begin":876,"end":878},"obj":"[\"12958120\"]"},{"id":"31583887-112-118-9167","span":{"begin":988,"end":990},"obj":"[\"11914301\"]"},{"id":"31583887-183-189-9168","span":{"begin":1059,"end":1061},"obj":"[\"26597972\"]"},{"id":"31583887-215-221-9169","span":{"begin":1274,"end":1276},"obj":"[\"21208779\"]"}],"text":"Data synthesis and analysis\nRevMan 5.3.0, the standard software provided by the Cochrane Collaboration, was employed to analyze the results of the RCTs. The meta-analysis model was performed when the patients, interventions, controls, and outcomes were the same or similar and the corresponding data were sufficiently homogeneous,74 while results of RCTs were described separately if significant heterogeneity existed. Continuous outcomes were expressed as weighted mean differences (WMDs), and dichotomous data were expressed as relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In the absence of significant heterogeneity, we explored the possible reasons and conducted a sensitive analysis if necessary. Heterogeneity across the trials was identified using both Chi-squared tests as well as I2, considering a value of I2\u003e50% as indicating substantial heterogeneity.75 Funnel plots were generated to detect publication bias when there were more than 10 trials in one comparison.76 When necessary data were available, subgroup analysis was conducted.77 In order to minimize bias in our findings and recommendations, we graded and assessed the available evidence by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Profiler (pro),78,79 with four levels of evidence: high, moderate, low, and very low."}

{"project":"2_test","denotations":[{"id":"31583887-3802833-28906844","span":{"begin":330,"end":332},"obj":"3802833"},{"id":"31583887-12958120-28906845","span":{"begin":876,"end":878},"obj":"12958120"},{"id":"31583887-11914301-28906846","span":{"begin":988,"end":990},"obj":"11914301"},{"id":"31583887-26597972-28906847","span":{"begin":1059,"end":1061},"obj":"26597972"},{"id":"31583887-21208779-28906848","span":{"begin":1274,"end":1276},"obj":"21208779"}],"text":"Data synthesis and analysis\nRevMan 5.3.0, the standard software provided by the Cochrane Collaboration, was employed to analyze the results of the RCTs. The meta-analysis model was performed when the patients, interventions, controls, and outcomes were the same or similar and the corresponding data were sufficiently homogeneous,74 while results of RCTs were described separately if significant heterogeneity existed. Continuous outcomes were expressed as weighted mean differences (WMDs), and dichotomous data were expressed as relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In the absence of significant heterogeneity, we explored the possible reasons and conducted a sensitive analysis if necessary. Heterogeneity across the trials was identified using both Chi-squared tests as well as I2, considering a value of I2\u003e50% as indicating substantial heterogeneity.75 Funnel plots were generated to detect publication bias when there were more than 10 trials in one comparison.76 When necessary data were available, subgroup analysis was conducted.77 In order to minimize bias in our findings and recommendations, we graded and assessed the available evidence by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Profiler (pro),78,79 with four levels of evidence: high, moderate, low, and very low."}

{"project":"MyTest","denotations":[{"id":"31583887-3802833-28906844","span":{"begin":330,"end":333},"obj":"3802833"},{"id":"31583887-12958120-28906845","span":{"begin":876,"end":879},"obj":"12958120"},{"id":"31583887-11914301-28906846","span":{"begin":988,"end":991},"obj":"11914301"},{"id":"31583887-26597972-28906847","span":{"begin":1059,"end":1062},"obj":"26597972"},{"id":"31583887-21208779-28906848","span":{"begin":1274,"end":1276},"obj":"21208779"}],"namespaces":[{"prefix":"_base","uri":"https://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/testbase"},{"prefix":"UniProtKB","uri":"https://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/"},{"prefix":"uniprot","uri":"https://www.uniprot.org/uniprotkb/"}],"text":"Data synthesis and analysis\nRevMan 5.3.0, the standard software provided by the Cochrane Collaboration, was employed to analyze the results of the RCTs. The meta-analysis model was performed when the patients, interventions, controls, and outcomes were the same or similar and the corresponding data were sufficiently homogeneous,74 while results of RCTs were described separately if significant heterogeneity existed. Continuous outcomes were expressed as weighted mean differences (WMDs), and dichotomous data were expressed as relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In the absence of significant heterogeneity, we explored the possible reasons and conducted a sensitive analysis if necessary. Heterogeneity across the trials was identified using both Chi-squared tests as well as I2, considering a value of I2\u003e50% as indicating substantial heterogeneity.75 Funnel plots were generated to detect publication bias when there were more than 10 trials in one comparison.76 When necessary data were available, subgroup analysis was conducted.77 In order to minimize bias in our findings and recommendations, we graded and assessed the available evidence by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Profiler (pro),78,79 with four levels of evidence: high, moderate, low, and very low."}

{"project":"testtesttest","denotations":[{"id":"T56","span":{"begin":785,"end":790},"obj":"Body_part"}],"attributes":[{"id":"A56","pred":"uberon_id","subj":"T56","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/UBERON_0000473"}],"text":"Data synthesis and analysis\nRevMan 5.3.0, the standard software provided by the Cochrane Collaboration, was employed to analyze the results of the RCTs. The meta-analysis model was performed when the patients, interventions, controls, and outcomes were the same or similar and the corresponding data were sufficiently homogeneous,74 while results of RCTs were described separately if significant heterogeneity existed. Continuous outcomes were expressed as weighted mean differences (WMDs), and dichotomous data were expressed as relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In the absence of significant heterogeneity, we explored the possible reasons and conducted a sensitive analysis if necessary. Heterogeneity across the trials was identified using both Chi-squared tests as well as I2, considering a value of I2\u003e50% as indicating substantial heterogeneity.75 Funnel plots were generated to detect publication bias when there were more than 10 trials in one comparison.76 When necessary data were available, subgroup analysis was conducted.77 In order to minimize bias in our findings and recommendations, we graded and assessed the available evidence by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Profiler (pro),78,79 with four levels of evidence: high, moderate, low, and very low."}