Exact(5)
Plain soap (P <.003) was more effective than CHG in reducing colony-forming unit counts among HCWs in the vascular surgery ward.
However, orthogonal contrasts indicated that significant differences between FDI and ADM were found comparing Bombolone to Salame (p = .031), Mortadella (p = .005) and Soap (p = .012).012
The reduction observed was also significantly less than with the reference soap; p < 0.001).
Application of the same amounts of Moringa oleifera (2 and 3 g) but using a wet preparation, was also significantly less effective than reference soap (p < 0.003 and p < 0.02, respectively).
Although soap and ash ownership showed significant patterns of association with wealth of a household, there was no difference between case and control caretakers in ownership of any soap (P = 0.85), soap only (P = 0.98), any ash (P = 0.50), or ash only (P = 0.10) (Table 4).
Similar(55)
After washing their hands with soap and water, 4% (P < 0.001) and 5% (P = 0.189) of the participants showed a difference of ≥10% in the glucose concentrations compared with the controls, respectively.
However, when using 4 grams of Moringa oleifera powder in dried or wet preparation there was no significant difference (mean log10-reductionlog10-reductionnd 2.91 ± 0.27, respectively) compandd with reference soap (2.91 ± 0.11, p > 0.5).
The number of days the cameras were present in the clinic had no significant effect on soap-and-water contact time (p = 0.380).
Respondents in the intervention villages were more likely to report that 'almost everyone in this village washes hands with soap after defecation' (35% versus 8%, p < 0.05) and that 'almost everyone in this village washes hands with soap before eating' (36% versus 10%, p < 0.05).
Of the three genes for micronemal proteins assayed, both ctrp and soap were significantly downregulated in Δ shlp1 ookinetes (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively).
The results suggested that there was no significant difference between these irrigating solutions (infection risk with soap versus bacitracin: 13% vs 18%, p = 0.2, respectively)[ 11].
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