Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(1)
The relative bias between two instruments is not known exactly, but must be estimated and corrected for.
Similar(59)
The maximum mean difference between two instruments was as high as 0.33 mmol/l (range 0.21 0.50 mmol/l).
The maximum difference between two instruments was 0.09 mmol/L (95 % CI 0.02 mmol/L) for systemic samples and 0.33 mmol/L (95 % CI ± 0.01 mmol/L; median Δ 0.29 mmol/L; 0.21 0.50 mmol/L) for post filter samples.
In the Schwarzer et al. study, the maximum mean difference between two instruments was 0.33 mmol/l (median 0.29 mmol/l, range 0.21 0.50 mmol/l) for postfilter iCa values despite internal quality controls within the 14%% variation of combined imprecision and bias according to national regulation.
The relationship between the two instruments is, indeed, markedly different - which is not to say balances are ideal throughout.
The effect of the difference in coolant spray between the two instruments is also a factor that needs considering when interpreting the data.
Comparing macular thickness between the two instruments is even more complicated, being dependant on pathology and location [ 14].
The difference between the two instruments is plotted on the y-axis and the mean of the instruments is plotted on the x-axis for each subject.
This distinction between the two instruments is consistent with previous research indicating that condition-specific patient-reported outcome measures tend to be more responsive to change than generic measures [ 36- 38].
The combined ℓ-range of these two instruments is between ℓ=150 and ∼10,000.
When both portable and bench top blood samples are each taken directly from the finger the mean difference between [lactate] measured by the portable and bench top analyzers was small across the full range of lactate values as depicted in figure 2. While the mean difference between the two instruments was near zero, differences between the instruments had a large variability (SD=1.45 mM/l).
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com