Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(1)
The Bartlett's test was c2 = 8735.46; it was found that the results of both tests were statistically significant at the level of p < 0.0001 and were satisfactory for factor analysis.
Similar(59)
The PP proportions of thrombolysis were higher in the intervention arms than in the control arms from both the EMS and the ER, and both the comparison tests were statistically significant (p = 0.04) (table 3).
The tests were statistically evaluated in accordance with Annex Z of Eurocode 3, to determine characteristic and design resistance values.
All ANOVA tests were statistically significant at p < .001.001
All trend tests were statistically significant.
All tests were statistically significant at P <0.0001.
Although not all the tests were statistically significant, there was a consistent pattern.
For each outcome, linear trend tests were statistically significant at the p < 0.01 level.
The tests were statistically significant or marginal significant for six out of 12 species.
bAll tests were statistically significant at P<0.0001, c P<0.05; and d P<0.001.
On other variables to impute, Dixon's tests were statistically significant for at least one variable.
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