Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(1)
Firstly, our dating of the lepisoroid ferns was calibrated with estimates obtained in previous analyses and thus the error of these studies holds the potential to create misleading results [ 33- 35].
Similar(59)
We therefore imputed the mean value of the standard errors of the other studies, and performed sensitivity analyses across the range of reported standard errors of these studies.
The estimated sampling error of this study was ±2.5%, with a 95% confidence interval [10].
The refractive error of the study subjects ranged from -12.12 D to +7.25 D (mean SE = +0.39±2.38 D).
Also, the multiplicity was not adjusted to control the type I error of this study.
Therefore, measuring the error of the studied techniques should always be performed when comparing two methods.
This refers to the systematic error of the study and is related to study design, variables and analysis strategy.
A sometimes unacceptable rate of error makes some of these studies unfortunately unusable.
Inclusion of the additional significant prognostic factors identified on multiple regression analysis or equivalent by the nine studies presented within this review should also be considered given the possibility of a type II error in some of these studies.
The amount of random error in these studies is estimated as 2,446, 7,227 and 5,977 random error units, respectively.
However, we believe that using this instrument and method is our best option to at least gain some insight into the effects of measurement error in these studies.
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