• No results found

<p>Longitudinal comparison of outcomes in patients with smoking-related asthma-COPD overlap and in non-smoking asthmatics with incomplete reversibility of airway obstruction</p>

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2020

Share "<p>Longitudinal comparison of outcomes in patients with smoking-related asthma-COPD overlap and in non-smoking asthmatics with incomplete reversibility of airway obstruction</p>"

Copied!
6
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

Figure

Figure 1 Comparison of symptom control at baseline and over the follow-up period of 12 months between aCO and ns-IraO.Notes: (A) aCQ-6 scores were higher in aCO as compared to ns-IraO at baseline and throughout the follow-up period (P=0.016) with no signif
Table S1 Baseline characteristics of subjects

References

Related documents

In this study, we apply exclusion criteria commonly used in adolescent pharmacological and psychotherapy clinical trials for MDD to a large, nationally representative adolescent

Given the rejection of a material a priori by the most important schools of philosophy of science, it was no accident that a broadly Kantian approach to TEs was

The study was conducted to analyze the potential of aquatic macrophytes Water Hyacinth ( Eichhorniacrassipes ), Water Lettuce ( Pistiastratiotes ) and Coontail

Microscopic analysis showed acid pretreatment worked well for all the samples for alkali pretreated sample, the sample which gave highest yield of sugar was Sorghum bran and the

Mean (± SE) number of aggressive and nurturing behaviours by male bluegill ( Lepomis macrochirus ) in response to experimentally manipulated levels of testosterone .... Mean (±

The proposed model is based on the combined application of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) using Fuzzy Decision Making Trial

Both the designed CTL and HTL MEVs were subjected to discontinuous B-cell epitope prediction to analyze structure- based humoral immunogenic potential of both MEVs using the

Comparatively, un- stabilized and composite stabilized soils result shown in tables 3.2 –3.3 into 3.2A and 3.3 and figures 3.2 – 3.3, maximum dry density (MDD) and optimum