Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(1)
For continuous variables, differences between two groups were tested by means of either Student t-test or Mann–Whitney U-test, while for multiple groups testing was done by ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA.
Similar(59)
Finally, results of multiple group testing as displayed in Table 6 indicate invariance across the three measurement points (ΔCFI = 0.000 and 0.000; ΔRMSEA = 0.001 and 0.002; ΔSRMR = 0.004 and 0.002).
The multiple group test showed the transcription levels among these three groups were significant different (P-value = 0.006).
Appropriate multiple group tests (one-way ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis) were used to compare the four groups to determine if there was a difference between them and, if positive, a Tukey's honestly significance difference test or individual Mann-Whitney U tests with Bonferroni's correction were used to determine where the difference lay, depending on the normality of the data.
Comparisons between the groups were performed with the two independent samples' t-test; those between multiple groups were tested with one-way ANOVA, and those between any groups were tested with SNK.
Two of 21 subjects (9.5%) in the single-dose groups and 3 of 11 subjects (27.3%) in the multiple-dose groups tested positive for ADAs following MEDI-546 administration.
Overall differences between multiple groups were tested using the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test.
Comparisons between multiple groups were tested using one-way ANOVA and Bonferroni post hoc tests.
Comparisons between multiple groups were tested using one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc test, and comparisons to the DMSO group reported.
Comparisons between multiple groups were tested using one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc test, and comparisons to the -JQ1 or GM1 group reported.
Multiple groups were tested by one-way ANOVA, and Dunnett's multiple comparison test was used to determine which groups were significantly different from the control group.
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