Exact(30)
Method errors ranged from 0.030 to 0.247 mm (Table 2).
The method errors evaluated through the Dahlberg formula are shown in Table 6.
Intraobserver random error was estimated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and method errors (√ Σd2/2n) [21].
Method errors were all less than 0.25 mm (averaged ≈0.12 mm).
The method errors showed that differences between duplicate measurements ranged from 0.04 to 0.12 mm. .
These changes were also within the range of the method errors.
Similar(30)
Overall, the method error was considered negligible.
The method error of measurements was calculated using Dahlberg's formula [15]: Method error = √ ∑ d 2 / 2 n.
Finally, to determine the method error, Dahlberg's formula, which defines the measurement error, was used.
Moreover, the two studies [23, 30] with low quality also lacked an internal method error analysis.
Dahlberg's formula was used to establish the method error [27].
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