All data were analyzed using the SAS software, version 6.03 (Statistical Analysis System, 1996) . Two-way ANOVA was used for analyzing the individual effects of fishmeal and nucleotide inclusion levels and the interaction between them. Duncan's multiple range test was used to compare differences between treatment means when significant F values were observed (Duncan, 1955) . All percentage data were arc-sin transformed prior to analysis (Zar 1984) . However, data are presented untransformed to facilitate comparisons.
Sas software version 6
Manufactured by SAS Institute
Sourced in United States
SAS software version 6.1 is a data analysis and statistical software package. It provides tools for data management, analysis, and reporting. The software is designed to handle large datasets and offers a range of statistical techniques. SAS software version 6.1 is used by organizations across various industries for data-driven decision making.
Automatically generated - may contain errors
Lab products found in correlation
9 protocols using sas software version 6
1
Fishmeal and Nucleotide Effects on Growth
2
Fishmeal and Nucleotide Effects on Growth
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
All data were analyzed using the SAS software, version 6.03 (Statistical Analysis System, 1996) . Two-way ANOVA was used for analyzing the individual effects of fishmeal and nucleotide inclusion levels and the interaction between them. Duncan's multiple range test was used to compare differences between treatment means when significant F values were observed (Duncan, 1955) . All percentage data were arc-sin transformed prior to analysis (Zar 1984) . However, data are presented untransformed to facilitate comparisons.
3
Multivariate Analysis of Recurrent HNC Risk
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
Multiple Cox regression was used to perform time-to-event analyses including a multivariate model examining risk factors for recurrent HNC or HNC-attributable death using time-varying covariates. TNFi therapy status was modeled as a time-varying covariate, though only three subjects switched into the TNFi exposure group post- HNC diagnoses. All other risk factors including smoking and alcohol use were not modeled as time-varying covariates due to the sporadic and inconsistent documentation of smoking status and alcohol use in the medical records. Multivariate survival regression models using time-varying covariates do not assume proportional hazards, hence this assumption was not tested. Chi-square, t-tests, and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to assess baseline differences between the groups. The three subjects who switched treatment groups were included in the TNFi group for these comparisons. A two-sided p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Outcome risk was described using hazard ratios (HRs). All analyses were performed using SAS software version 6.12 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Kaplan-Meier time-to-event curves were created using R software version 2.5.1 (R Foundation, Vienna, Austria).
4
Corneal Damage Statistical Analysis
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
Two-sided levels of significance and confidence intervals were calculated and reported, and a statistical level of significance of 0.05 was used (unless otherwise indicated). For efficacy parameters, significance assessments were performed using a modified t test (with Fischer arcsin-frequency conversion for frequency variables), χ2 test with Mantel–Haenszel correction, and Fisher’s exact test. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS software version 6.12 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). No changes were made to the methodology after the trial began. One post-study subgroup analysis was conducted for baseline total corneal damage (elevated or not elevated), as discussed in this article. No other subgroup analyses were conducted, and no interim or other adjusted analyses were conducted.
5
Reoperation Analysis After Spinal Fusion
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
Time to event (reoperation) survival analysis was performed. The primary endpoint was reoperation during the follow-up period. Presence of any procedure codes including the aforementioned procedure codes registered after the index procedure code was identified as reoperation. Since later interventions may not have portrayed the natural history that occurred after fusion operations, the third and subsequent reoperation events were excluded from the cumulative operation rates. January 1, 2012, the first date in our data collection period, and June 30, 2017, the last date, were used if the latter date was not available. Therefore, the minimal follow-up period is four and a half years (from January 1, 2013, to June 30, 2017). Reoperation rates were analyzed early (before 1 year postoperatively) or late (after 1 year postoperatively) period of follow-up. Chi-square tests or t-test was used to compare the baseline characteristics of the subjects. Statistical analysis for comparison between the two groups was performed with Cox proportional hazards regression modeling. Statistical analysis for the comorbidities according to hospital types was performed with 4-sample proportional test. Data were analyzed by the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) software version 6.1 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA). A p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
6
Regulation of eNOS/TLR2 by miR-155/miR-19a
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
All data are presented as mean ± SD. SAS software version 6.1 (SAS institute, Cary, NC) was utilized to carry out all statistical analyses. The differences between treated and untreated groups were analyzed using one-tailed Williams’ tests, or one-tailed Shirley-Williams’ tests with Holm’s correction. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to evaluate the effect of miR-155/miR-19a on the expression of eNOS/TLR2. A P value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
7
Comparative Analysis of Treatment Outcomes
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
All data were presented as mean ± standard deviation. SAS software version 6.1 (SAS institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA) was used to perform all statistical analyses. Wilcoxon rank test or χ2 test were used to analyze the differences between treated and untreated groups. Continuous dependent variables between two groups were compared using an independent t-test. Correlation between groups was analyzed using Spearman correlation analysis. P<0.05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant difference.
8
Comparative Analysis of Respiratory Parameters
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
Numerical data are reported as means±SD or medians and ranges (minimum-maximum).
Categorical data are reported as frequencies (%). The variables had a non-normal
distribution according to the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Therefore, a non-parametric
test was applied. Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA, with the corresponding Dunn's multiple
comparison test, was used to compare numerical variables between the three groups.
Fisher's exact test was used to compare categorical variables. When the association
between categorical variables within the group was significant at 5%, Fisher's exact
test, set for each peer group separately, was used. Therefore, we aimed to identify
which groups differed from each other at a level of 1.7%. A level of 1.7% (5% divided
by the number comparisons: 0.05/3=0.017) was used to control for type I error. To
determine the existence of significant variations in FEV1, FVC, and BMI
values between M1 and M2, the Wilcoxon signed rank test was used. Data analysis was
performed using SAS software version 6.11 (SAS Institute, Inc., USA). The level of
statistical significance was set at P<0.05.
Categorical data are reported as frequencies (%). The variables had a non-normal
distribution according to the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Therefore, a non-parametric
test was applied. Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA, with the corresponding Dunn's multiple
comparison test, was used to compare numerical variables between the three groups.
Fisher's exact test was used to compare categorical variables. When the association
between categorical variables within the group was significant at 5%, Fisher's exact
test, set for each peer group separately, was used. Therefore, we aimed to identify
which groups differed from each other at a level of 1.7%. A level of 1.7% (5% divided
by the number comparisons: 0.05/3=0.017) was used to control for type I error. To
determine the existence of significant variations in FEV1, FVC, and BMI
values between M1 and M2, the Wilcoxon signed rank test was used. Data analysis was
performed using SAS software version 6.11 (SAS Institute, Inc., USA). The level of
statistical significance was set at P<0.05.
9
Statistical Analysis of Experimental Data
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
The Shapiro–Wilk test was used to evaluate sample homogeneity. The results are expressed as median values and interquartile ranges or numbers (percentages). Inferential analysis included the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test to compare the findings with categorical data and the Mann–Whitney test or Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA to compare findings with numerical data. Dunn's multiple comparison test was applied to identify subpopulations that differed significantly. Data were analyzed using SAS software version 6.11 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA). p-Values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
About PubCompare
Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.
We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.
However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.
Ready to get started?
Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required
Revolutionizing how scientists
search and build protocols!