Your English writing platform
Free sign upSuggestions(1)
Exact(2)
Mean and standard deviation (SD) were used to describe the participants and their characteristics for continuous variables, whereas counts with percentages were used for categorical variables.
Descriptive characteristics for continuous variables are presented as means ± SDs and as percentage changes between time points ± SEs within each group.
Similar(58)
Patients with and without TBI were studied for differences in clinical characteristics, using Student t-tests for continuous variables and Chi-Square or Fisher Exact test for categorical variables.
For the summary statistics, group comparisons were made on baseline characteristics using ANOVA for continuous variables and Mantel-Haenszel chi-square tests for categorical variables.
We used ANOVA to test for differences in baseline characteristics between groups for continuous variables and the χ test for dichotomous measures.
Non-parametric receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for continuous variables were generated and the area under the curve (AUC) was measured to summarize the ability of WC and WHtR to detect subjects with at least two CMR biomarkers.
We compared subject characteristics using t-tests for continuous variables and chi-square tests for categorical variables.
Descriptive statistics were applied to the study population to present demographic and clinical characteristics: median, mean, range for continuous variables; number and percentage for qualitative variables.
For secondary outcomes and for baseline characteristics the significance of differences for continuous variables was tested using one-way ANOVA if the variable was normally distributed or the Kruskall-Wallis test if not normally distributed.
Subjects' characteristics were calculated as means for continuous variables and frequency for all categorical variables.
Baseline characteristics are reported as means for continuous variables and percentages for discrete variables (Table 1).
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