Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(1)
Significant differences between means were assessed by Duncan's multiple range analysis (P < 0.05) [ 59].
Similar(59)
All other statistical analysis was performed using a one-way multiple-range analysis of variance test (ANOVA) for multiple comparisons.
The P values of clinical scores were determined by one-way multiple-range analysis of variance (ANOVA) for multiple comparisons.
The experimental results were analyzed by a single factor ANOVA using a computer statistics analysis software SPSS 10.0 (SPSS, Chicago, USA) for intergroup comparisons, and Duncan's multiple range test analysis method was used to determine the significant differences among the various groups (P < 0.05).
The significance of results has been presented in the form of probability, using post-hoc multiple ranges under analysis of variance [ 33].
Results were articulated as mean ± standard error (SE), and all statistical comparisons were made by means of one-way ANOVA test followed by Duncan's multiple range test post hoc analysis.
Where applicable, the data were subjected to one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and differences between samples were determined by Duncan's Multiple Range test using the Statistical Analysis System (SAS, 1999) program.
Statistical differences between means were analyzed using Duncan's multiple range test after one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).
Table 10 Results of analysis of multiple range test at 99 % Confidence Limit Mix Count Mean Homogeneous groups C6_25 5 195 X C7_5 4 252 X X C5 5 357 X X X C10 5 400 X X.
Different lower case letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.001), according to separate Duncan's new multiple range tests followed by contrast analysis (indoor vs. field plants) applied to data presented in each column.
The comparison between means and standard deviations was tested for significance (P ≤ 0.05) using ANOVA analysis, Duncan's multiple range test, and t test.
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