Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(4)
Exact(26)
An analysis of variance (GenStat release 15·0; VSN, Hertfordshire, UK) was used for comparison of treatment effects during the root-zone temperature treatments and least significant differences were calculated at 5%% significance.
Significant differences were calculated as described before.
Significant differences were calculated using Kruskal-Wallis after analysis with the Komologov-Smirnoff test and univariate ANOVA.
Statistically significant differences were calculated using the two-tailed unpaired t test or one-way analysis of variance with p values of ≤0.05, <0.01, and <0.001 considered significant using Prism 5.0 (GraphPad Software, CA, USA).
Statistically significant differences were calculated using a two-tailed unpaired t test or one-way analysis of variance; p values of < 0.05 and < 0.01 were considered to be significant.
Significant differences were calculated by a Student's t test.
Similar(33)
Significant differences are calculated using an unpaired two-sided t test unless otherwise noted, p values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant and significance levels in graphs are marked as follows: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, and ***p < 0.005.
The mean percentage inhibitions are presented in Table 2 and the Student's t.LSD (least significant difference) were calculated at 5% level of significance (t.LSDp=0.05 = 8.7146) to compare the means with a pooled variance of 16.5565 and 81 degrees of freedom.
If statistically non-significant differences were calculated, a larger number of study patients of at least 300 to 2,000 patients in each group would have been required to guarantee sufficient statistical power, for example, for the inflammatory biomarkers PCT, CRP and WBC with respect to diagnosis or prognosis.
Significant difference was calculated by one-way ANOVA using SPSS19.0.
For multiple group comparison, significant difference was calculated using the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U 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