Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(3)
Exact(1)
In Table 3, we summarized the fraction of simulations with p-value less than 0.05 for each of the two tests and the fraction of simulations with both tests having a p-value less than 0.05 (shared), with the difference between these fractions measuring the independent signals captured by each test.
Similar(59)
However, by day 14 both tests had an equal proportion of interpretable results (92%).
As a final note, it was observed that Winsteps returned a Cronbach's alpha score of 0.91 for the 2009 test and 0.92 for the 2013 test, showing that both tests had a high degree of internal consistency.
Both tests had a very high NPV.
The 36 children participating in both tests had a previous response to bronchodilators as judged by clinical observation.
Both tests had a high negative predictive value (≥97%) but a low positive predictive value (≤4%) for the identification of contacts that developed active TB disease over time.
In addition, this study was performed in women aged 30 60 years so that it does not provide any evidence for the relative benefits of cytology vs HPV testing in younger women, wherein both tests have a higher positivity rate.
The estimated sensitivities of culture alone, MAT alone, and culture plus MAT (for which the result was considered positive if one or both tests had a positive result) were 10.5%95%5% credible interval [CrI], 2.7%–27.5%), 49.8% (95% CrI, 37.6%–60.8%), and 55.5% (95% CrI, 42.9%–67.7%), respectively.
At the cutoff of 19.0 U/ml, both tests had an identical sensitivity, but the specificity of the anti-MCV was reduced.
Across all study groups, the 144 participants who completed both tests had an average combined raw score that increased from pre-test 31% (SD = 11%) to post-test 48% (SD = 15.5%).
Both tests have an excellent level of specificity (approximately 100%) [ 18, 19], but the level of sensitivity is suboptimal, with the sensitivity of the CFT being approximately 97% and that of the mallein test being 75.7% [ 18, 20].
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