Hence, the reliability score depends on the trial-bin width used to calculate it.
In Figure 3D,E of the main text, reliability scores were calculated by averaging different numbers of trials (trial bin widths of 24 [on average] and 5 respectively).
In Figure 3D,F of the main text, reliability scores were calculated by averaging different numbers of trials (trial bin widths of 24 [on average] and 5 respectively).
As seen in this panel, the highest cell-averaged reliability scores for trial bin-widths of 5 and 25 closely match the reliability scores seen in Figure 3D,F respectively.
In the grower trial, body weight, hip width, and BCS were measured on d 56, 84, and 112.
Below-ground attributes were measured using the same protocol used in trial 1, including soil width and depth increments of 0 < 0.5, 0.5 < 1.0, and ≥1.0 m.
The following data were calculated for each trial: stride length, step width, percentage stance time, and gait symmetry.
Note that the confidence intervals shown in Table 5 are based on modelling the meta-analysis data and are not intended for trial planning purposes; the width of the interval will be dependent on the sample size of future trials.
Within this trial, patients with QRS width of 120 130 ms had a significant benefit over the control group, compared to the non-significant change in patients with QRS <120 ms; strengthening the argument of using QRS for better predicting the response of CRT, an electrical intervention.
We used the sample size of 300 trials to restrict the width of a 95% two sided confidence interval around the estimated proportion of trials reporting research ethics review or informed consent.
