Garip aileler

Fazlı Necip'in Yeni Asır'da tefrika edilen Garip Aileler adlı romanıArşivdeki eksikler nedeniyle tefrika yarım kalmıştır. Ancak tefrikanın tamamlandığı bilinmektedir

Additional file 3: Table S3. of Skin fungal community and its correlation with bacterial community of urban Chinese individuals

Relative abundances of genera and Malassezia species across samples, households, and individuals. (XLSX 80 kb

Trigonotis icumae Makino

原著和名: ツルカメバサウ科名: ムラサキ科 = Boraginaceae採集地: 長野県 北佐久郡 軽井沢町 塩沢 (信濃 北佐久郡 軽井沢町 塩沢)採集日: 1984/5/22採集者: 萩庭丈壽整理番号: JH001358国立科学博物館整理番号: TNS-VS-95135

Additional file 10: Table S7. of Skin fungal community and its correlation with bacterial community of urban Chinese individuals

Proportions in percentages of significant SparCC correlations based on domain relationships between OTUs. (DOCX 61 kb

Comparisons of each regimen with Gemcitabine (G).

<p>Footnotes: Hazard ratios when comparing each regimen with Gemcitabine (G), projected median overall survival (OS), number needed to treat (NNT) at 6 months and 1 year when compared with G. Projected median OS was calculated using a median OS of 5.65 months as reported by Buris et al (5). Survival and NNT was estimated based on the mixed treatment comparisons results and the method by Altman and Andersen (22).</p><p>Comparisons of each regimen with Gemcitabine (G).</p

Treatment strategy network.

<p>Numbers represent the number of studies comparing the linked regimens; brackets represent the number included in the quantitative analysis.</p

PRISMA Flow diagram of included and excluded trials identified from the literature search.

<p>There were 13 studies that were excluded after full text review for “other” reasons. The reasons are as follows: 4 were secondary analyses, 2 were quality of life studies, 2 were pooled analyses, 1 study was not randomized, 1 was a review, 1 was a tumour marker study, 1 was a safety analysis, and 1 study was excluded because it was retrospective.</p

Hazard ratio comparisons of overall survival (OS) from mixed treatment comparisons.

<p>Median values given with 95% credible regions. Hazard ratios (HRs) expressed as experimental vs. control. G, gemcitabine; GF, gemcitabine + fluorouracil; GCap, gemcitabine + capecitabine; GOx, gemcitabine + oxaliplatin; GCis, gemcitabine + cisplatin; FOLFIRINOX; GE, gemcitabine + erlotinib; GS, gemcitabine + S1; GnP, gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel.</p

Forest plot of direct comparisons between the regimens.

<p>Forest plot showing hazard ratio comparisons with 95% CI for overall survival (OS) from meta-analyses of direct comparisons between different combinations of gemcitabine (GEM), gemcitabine + fluorouracil (GF), gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel (GnP), gemcitabine + capecitabine (GCap), gemcitabine + cisplatin (GCis), gemcitabine + erlotinib (GE), FOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine + oxaliplatin (GOx), and G + S1 (GS). I² values indicate statistical heterogeneity, where 0% indicates no observed heterogeneity and larger values show increasing heterogeneity (17).</p

Probabilities that each treatment regimen is the best based on overall survival (OS).

<p>G, gemcitabine; GF, gemcitabine + fluorouracil; GCap, gemcitabine + capecitabine; GOx, gemcitabine + oxaliplatin; GCis, gemcitabine + cisplatin; FOLFIRINOX; GE, gemcitabine + erlotinib; GS, gemcitabine + S1; GnP, gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel.</p