Exact(10)
RESULTS: At follow-up, the CLPD group showed similar values of PRI as the CILO group (66.9±14.0% vs. 63.1±14.1%; mean difference: 3.9%; 95% confidence interval of difference: -1.7% to 9.4%; p=0.174).
with 95% confidence interval of difference (CI Δ).
Measurement equivalence was examined by comparing the 90%% confidence interval of difference in the EQ-5D-5L index and EQ-VAS scores with a pre-determined equivalence margin.
The mean foot length recorded by the researcher was 0.26 cm longer that that recorded by the volunteers (SD 0.27, 95% confidence interval of difference between the means 0.22-0.30).
The Risk of Progression of Coronary Calcium Score According to Baseline Brachial-Ankle Pulse Wave Velocity: Odds Ratio (95 % Confidence Interval) of Difference [√CAC follow-up) − √CAC(baseline)] >2.5 by Pulse Wave Velocity quartiles—The SQRT Analysis.
The overall mean absolute relative difference (MARD) value [standard deviation (s.d).] measured at the CRC was 13.6 (11.0)% for the DG4P and 16.6 (13.5)% for the ENL [p < 0.0002, confidence interval of difference (CI Δ) 1.7 4.3%, n = 530].
Similar(50)
*Significant difference between strains (95% credible interval of differences between strains did not envelop zero).
Increased incoherence increases standard errors, and hence the size of the confidence interval, of differences between treatments.
This arrangement is designed to allow bout length to decline to zero over extinction, as indicated in Equation 3. *Significant difference between strains (95% credible interval of differences between strains did not envelop zero).
The relatively wide 95%% confidence intervals of difference in amount of circulating heparan sulphate and syndecan-1 between animals resuscitated with RA and FFP, respectively, suggest we cannot exclude that smaller differences may exist and could have been detected if more animals had been included.
For confidence intervals of difference scores, see Table 4.
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