https://www.selleckchem.com/products/nu7441.html Furthermore, these results open new perspectives for knowledge of the mechanisms that underlie the higher percentage of Treg cells found in peripheral blood of PCM patients.Traditional statistical analyses of randomized clinical trials typically employ p-values within a null hypothesis significance testing paradigm. Clinical adoption of randomized trials results, by both guideline writers and individual clinicians, are often unequivocally determined by a deification of p less then 0.05. While the many limitations and large potential for misinterpretations with this approach have long been appreciated in the statistical literature, these issues are less frequently considered in the clinical literature. Discussions of these limitations may be viewed as esoteric, so that many cardiovascular specialists believe they are of little clinical importance. Using contemporary examples from the cardiovascular literature the potential, interpretative pitfalls in assessing "negative", "positive" and "non-inferiority" trials are discussed accompanied by caveats on the statistical issues of the strength of the evidence and researcher degrees of freedom. Considerations such as effect size overestimation, robustness of results, statistical power issues, pitfalls in noninferiority-trial interpretation, researcher degrees of freedom, and strength of evidence are discussed, using examples from well-known trials in the areas of surgical and interventional management of coronary artery disease, heart-failure management and pharmacotherapy. The examples provided illustrate how even landmark trials in prestigious journals can present statistical problems that substantially undermine their conclusions or even make them unreliable. The goal of the article is to help clinicians to more accurately reflect upon and interpret research, by emphasizing the importance of the choice and interpretation of some of the current statistical techniques emplo