ライフサイエンスコーパス: rank sum test

1 proved with the DSpecs (P = 0.0026, Wilcoxon rank sum test).

2 y better with the DSpecs (P = 0.02, Wilcoxon rank sum test).

3 95% CI, 16.2-24.6 IU/mL]; P < .001, Wilcoxon rank sum test).

4 P. inui infection (P = .010, by the Wilcoxon rank sum test).

5 d P = 0.02, respectively, using the Wilcoxon rank sum test).

6 ot in the upper pole) cryoablation (Wilcoxon rank sum test).

7 ween the 3 groups for each protein (Wilcoxon rank sum test).

8 omparisons were nonsignificant (Mann-Whitney rank sum test).

9 (77 +/- 7 versus 11 +/- 8%, P < or = 0.001, rank sum test).

10 ] vs. DOD [8.58 ng/mL]; P=.026, Mann-Whitney rank sum test).

11 .0001 and p = 0.0003, respectively; Friedman rank sum test).

12 e since quitting smoking (P = 0.03; Wilcoxon rank sum test).

13 vs. 0.455, respectively; P<.05, Mann-Whitney rank sum test).

14 mechanisms of injury (p = .027, Mann-Whitney Rank Sum test).

15 ival (OS; P = 0.019 and 0.013, respectively; rank sum test).

16 0.2) in Walker et al (all p<0.0001, Wilcoxon rank sum test).

17 /dL) relative to controls (P = .18, Wilcoxon rank sum test).

18 TOF (median, 14.3 muIU/mL; P = .35, Wilcoxon rank sum test).

19 or tremor amplification, two-tailed Wilcoxon rank sum test).

20 s, compared with controls (P < .05; Wilcoxon rank-sum test).

21 years in 2006-2007 (P<0.001 by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test).

22 the log-rank test and P=0.04 by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test).

23 = 0.046) than in control subjects (Wilcoxon rank-sum test).

24 was in younger patients (P = 0.01, Wilcoxon rank-sum test).

25 the last menstrual cycle, (P=.031, Wilcoxon rank-sum test).

26 ong those assigned to the CPU (P<0.01 by the rank-sum test).

27 rtile range, 0.00%-0.08%) (P=0.005, Wilcoxon rank-sum test).

28 (2.5+/-0.3 vs. 3.4+/-0.8; P = 0.02, Wilcoxon rank-sum test).

29 ctions (P < 0.001, Fisher exact and Wilcoxon rank sum tests).

30 ctions (P < 0.001; Fisher exact and Wilcoxon rank sum tests).

31 rs and nonresponders were compared (Wilcoxon rank sum tests).

32 onparametric tests (Wilcoxon signed-rank and rank-sum tests).

33 healthy adults >=60 years (all P < 0.001 by rank sum testing).

34 g the independent groups t test and Wilcoxon rank sum test.

35 ng alone were compared by using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.

36 ed between treatment arms using the 2-sample rank sum test.

37 atistical significance by using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.

38 ical indices were compared with Mann-Whitney Rank Sum test.

39 e groups were compared by using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.

40 g by outcome was compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.

41 d groups was performed by using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.

42 r significant differences using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.

43 ailability of comparison films with Wilcoxon rank sum test.

44 son correlation coefficient and the Wilcoxon rank sum test.

45 ere made nonparametrically with the Wilcoxon rank sum test.

46 models and compared with use of the Wilcoxon rank sum test.

47 was undertaken using the t test of Wilcoxon rank sum test.

48 n relationships were examined using Wilcoxon rank sum test.

49 een pCR and non-pCR groups by using Wilcoxon rank sum test.

50 citation impact measures using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.

51 age quality were compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.

52 were compared by the nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test.

53 ed school days) were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum test.

54 were compared across CLAD strata by Wilcoxon rank sum test.

55 d using the Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.

56 rom the preceding year by using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.

57 n of years in practice by the Kruskal-Wallis rank-sum test.

58 med using the Fisher exact test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

59 ility scores were compared with the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

60 ods such as Student's t-test or the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

61 amplicon were assessed using Mann-Whitney's rank-sum test.

62 d by testing for gene set using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

63 ed with a two-tailed Mann-Whitney two-sample rank-sum test.

64 tribution or, alternatively, by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

65 ween each activity were compared by Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

66 igated using logistic regression or Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

67 arge sample sizes, we recommend the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

68 articipants were assessed using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

69 in or placebo were tested using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

70 trol is often failed except for the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

71 c mean ratio (GMR) with 90% CIs and Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

72 omparisons were performed using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

73 lelic pairs were compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

74 FR-negative) was assessed using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

75 regions were compared by using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

76 on density were evaluated using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

77 m a point-by-point analysis using the Wilcox rank-sum test.

78 r randomization, as assessed by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

79 between the two groups by using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

80 centrations by HIV status using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

81 aseline, were compared by using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

82 and normal groups were analyzed by Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

83 tween disease subgroups using Kruskal-Wallis rank sum tests.

84 tistically by using t tests and Mann-Whitney rank sum tests.

85 the Wilcoxon paired signed rank and unpaired rank sum tests.

86 e analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon rank sum tests.

87 re compared between services, using Wilcoxon rank sum tests.

88 as calculated using analysis of variance and rank sum tests.

89 e compared using Pearson chi(2) and Wilcoxon rank sum tests.

90 sessed using two-sample t tests and Wilcoxon rank sum tests.

91 statistics, Fisher exact tests, and Wilcoxon rank sum tests.

92 (NACDG) series were conducted using Wilcoxon rank sum tests.

93 s determined by using Mann-Whitney (Wilcoxon rank sum) test.

94 e compared using Pearson chi(2) and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.

95 age quality) were compared by using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.

96 ermined using x2, Fisher exact, and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.

97 rate [A wave]) time points by using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.

98 e-matched control subjects by using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.

99 statistically with Fisher exact and Wilcoxon rank sum testing.

100 d showed no statistical difference, Wilcoxon rank-sum test = -1.99, p = .065.

101 In addition, using chi(2) and Wilcoxon rank sum tests, 120 novel candidate disease genes were i

102 l, 91 patients were included in the Wilcoxon rank sum test (47 patients from the screen time permitte

103 le size, the gene-selection via the Wilcoxon rank sum test (a non-parametric two sample test method)

104 Data was analyzed by Wilcoxon Rank Sums Test (a = 0.05).

105 rols (median, 91.5 mg/dL) (P = .01, Wilcoxon rank sum test), a phenomenon not observed in the materna

106 were compared by using the unpaired Wilcoxon rank sum test, a linear regression model, the Fisher exa

107 ndex 0.53, 95% CI 0.50-0.55; p=0.04 Wilcoxon rank-sum test, adjusted odds ratio 0.84 [95% CI 0.72-0.9

108 es versus controls were assessed by Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, adjusted logistic regression and partial

109 A Wilcoxon rank sum test and Cohen effect size calculation were per

110 l variables were compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test and Fisher exact test, respectively.

111 r 5 lesions were compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test and Fisher exact test.

112 stical testing was performed with Wilcoxon's rank sum test and Fisher's exact test.

113 selection schemas (Student t test, Wilcoxon rank sum test and genetic algorithm) to reduce the high

114 The Wilcoxon rank sum test and linear mixed-effects model were used f

115 tabolite levels were compared using Wilcoxon Rank Sum test and logistic regressions adjusting for age

116 Wilcoxon rank sum test and rank analysis of variance were used to

117 of lobes was compared between sexes with the rank sum test and regressed against age.

118 parisons were assessed by the Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test and t-test.

119 ferences were assessed by using the Wilcoxon rank sum test and the signed rank test.

120 t-test for parametric data and the Wilcoxon rank sum test and the Wilcoxon signed rank test for non-

121 monoamines were analyzed by the Mann Whitney rank sum test and those differences in probability distr

122 ysis of data was performed by using Wilcoxon rank sum test and two-sample Student t test, and interob

123 compared with the ORR by using the Wilcoxon rank sum test and with PFS by using the log-rank test.

124 tation was investigated using Kruskal-Wallis rank sum testing and Fisher exact test, respectively, us

125 Wilcoxon's rank sum tests and conditional multivariable regression

126 Wilcoxon rank sum tests and the multivariate Cox proportional haz

127 inical outcomes were compared via Wilcoxon's rank-sum test and Fisher's exact test, as well as multiv

128 lection procedure that involved the Wilcoxon rank-sum test and HOPACH (Hierarchical Ordered Partition

129 Wilcoxon rank-sum test and Pearson correlation analyses were perf

130 fected controls were compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and linear regression.

131 mpared to non-IRIS controls using chi(2) and rank-sum tests and logistic regression.

132 zation factors paired with t-tests, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and methodologies implemented by R packag

133 Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and multivariate linear regression models

134 Exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and Spearman rank correlation coefficient

135 eotide variants (P = 7.0 x 10(-03), Wilcoxon rank sum test) and small insertions and deletions (indel

136 relations with pathologic response (Wilcoxon rank-sum test) and predictive power assessed (area under

137 nprogressors; P = 0.0001, z = 3.85, Wilcoxon rank-sum test) and was associated with the progression t

138 inst tumor multiplicity (P < 0.001, Wilcoxon rank sum test), and 96% protection against tumor volume

139 of death [DOD] [28.06]; P=.015, Mann-Whitney rank sum test), and increased serum somatostatin levels

140 ), duration of smoking (P = 0.0009; Wilcoxon rank sum test), and negatively with the time since quitt

141 84, and 97% protection, P < 0.001, Wilcoxon rank sum test), and tumor volume (76, 94, and 96% protec

142 tric t-test, (2). Wilcoxon (or Mann-Whitney) rank sum test, and (3). a heuristic method based on high

143 d logistic and linear regression, Wilcoxon's rank sum test, and chi-square test.

144 nivariate analyses used chi2 test, Wilcoxson rank sum test, and chi2 test for trend.

145 alysis, linear regression analysis, Wilcoxon rank sum test, and Kruskal-Wallis test were employed.

146 e linear regression analyses, Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test, and post hoc Dunn test with Holm correcti

147 uded the Wilcoxon signed rank test, Wilcoxon rank sum test, and Spearman correlation coefficient.

148 g generalized estimation equations, Wilcoxon rank sum test, and Wilcoxon signed rank test.

149 Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney rank sum tests, and the parametric survival model and ac

150 ed by using Wilcoxon signed rank or Wilcoxon rank sum tests, and true-negative and false-negative fin

151 with the Wilcoxon signed rank test, Wilcoxon rank sums test, and the Spearman rho correlation coeffic

152 s completed using Student's t test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and analysis of variance, as appropriate.

153 utilizing the Kruskal-Wallis test, Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, and Linear Discriminant Analysis.

154 log-rank statistics, nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and Student's t test.

155 ng a histogram-based method and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and visualizes candidate genes with dynam

156 Metrics were compared by Mann-Whitney rank-sum tests, and receiver operating curves were plott

157 Overall, the rank sum test appears most conservative, which may be ad

158 Friedman as well as Wilcoxon rank-sum tests are performed to determine the effectiven

159 erformed with Wilcoxon signed rank tests and rank sum tests, as well as Pearson correlation analysis.

160 s were made using Student t test or Wilcoxon rank-sum test, as appropriate.

161 reting VFDs, including Student's t tests and rank-sum tests, as well as competing risk regressions tr

162 Wilcoxon rank-sum tests assessed uptake differences across Ki-67

163 d ethnic groups were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum tests, Bartlett 1-way analysis of variance, and

164 comparing article page views by the Wilcoxon Rank sum test between articles randomized to social medi

165 stiffness ratio were studied using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests between participants with and without ane

166 GA (median, 13.1 muIU/mL; P = .048, Wilcoxon rank sum test) but not with TOF (median, 14.3 muIU/mL; P

167 , CT = 3 years, and TT = 2.7 years; Wilcoxon rank-sum test CC vs. CT, P = 4 x 10(-4) and CT vs. TT, P

168 Wilcoxon rank sum tests compared changes between arms.

169 By Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, cTnT protein ( P = 6.04 x 10 -5 ) and mR

170 Exact Wilcoxon rank sum test demonstrated significantly poorer performa

171 with pack-years smoked (P = 0.007; Wilcoxon rank sum test), duration of smoking (P = 0.0009; Wilcoxo

172 assessed using Student t tests and Wilcoxon rank sum tests followed by a multiregression model.

173 t 3 months were performed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test following the intention-to-treat procedure

174 omparison of categorical values and Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous values.

175 e analyzed using 2-sample t test or Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables and Pearson chi2

176 Comparisons were made using the Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables and the chi2 or F

177 obectomies were generated using the Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables and the chi2 test

178 Statistical analysis used the Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables and the McNemar t

179 roportions for binary variables and Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables.

180 for intragroup differences and the Wilcoxon rank sum test for intergroup differences.

181 ired t tests for mean values or the Wilcoxon rank sum test for medians.

182 for normally distributed variables, Wilcoxon rank sum test for nonnormally distributed, and Chi-squar

183 PHLF using Fisher exact, t test, or Wilcoxon rank sum test for univariate and logistic regression for

184 parametric Kruskal-Wallis test with Wilcoxon rank sum tests for follow-up comparisons.

185 Arms were compared using rank sum tests for log ratio and TTG and a log-rank test

186 est for categoric variables and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuous variables.

187 al variables, Student's t-test, and Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuous variables.

188 st for categorical variables or the Wilcoxon rank-sum test for numerical and ordered categorical vari

189 tests for categorical variables and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for continuous variables.

190 s: Z-test, Kolmogorov Smirnov test, Wilcoxon rank sum test, gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA), and

191 A data (e.g., two-sample t-tests, Wilcoxon's rank sum test), hence neglecting the spatial dependency

192 Statistical methods included the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, Hodges-Lehmann estimator, Bland-Altman te

193 erentially regulated genes identified by the rank sum test in different sets are not consistent while

194 oint was assessed with the use of a Wilcoxon rank-sum test in which deaths were categorized as the lo

195 nths, as assessed with the use of a Wilcoxon rank-sum test in which deaths were categorized below the

196 al analyses were performed by using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests (in vitro), repeated-measures test, and D

197 A Wilcoxon rank-sum test indicated that the retinal severity scores

198 n the HIV-2-infected women (P<.001, Wilcoxon rank sum test), irrespective of the length of time infec

199 on and Tibshirani's empirical Bayes Wilcoxon rank sum test is recommended when the background cannot

200 Statistical analysis used Wilcoxon rank sum test, Kruskal-Wallis, Spearman correlation, and

201 l and IDH1 mutation status (t test, Wilcoxon rank sum test, linear regression; p < 0.01).

202 formed by using one-tailed t tests, Wilcoxon rank sum tests, one-way analysis of variance, Pearson co

203 y groups were assessed by using the Wilcoxon rank sum test or Pearson chi(2) test prior to matching a

204 markers and 12-month outcomes used Wilcoxon rank sum tests or Pearson correlations.

205 inuous variables were analyzed with Wilcoxon rank sum tests or t tests.

206 orical data were compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test or Fisher exact test, respectively.

207 by LVAD use were assessed with the Wilcoxon rank-sum test or the paired t test.

208 sted using the unpaired t test, Mann-Whitney rank-sum test, or the Kruskal-Wallis test.

209 lly significant for Q(A) and Q(CV) (Wilcoxon rank sum test P = 0.0002 and P = 0.001, respectively).

210 and constriction velocity (Q(CV)) (Wilcoxon rank sum test P = 0.002, respectively).

211 ubjects without or mild NPDR cases (Wilcoxon rank sum test P = 0.013).

212 was not statistically significant (Wilcoxon rank sum test P = 0.15).

213 he 4 cell types, and chi-square and Wilcoxin rank sum tests (P <.0005) identified 359 and 500 previou

214 five approaches using a two-tailed Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test (p <= 0.05).

215 eader-reader weighted kappa values (Wilcoxon rank sum test, P < .05).

216 es: MDM2, VCAM-1, erbB2, and H-ras (Wilcoxon rank sum test, P = .008, .02, .04, and .04, respectively

217 tients (n = 262; mean, 1.75 v 1.98; Wilcoxon rank sum test, P = .46), nor did their family members (m

218 family members (mean, 1.95 v 2.04; Wilcoxon rank sum test, P = .80).

219 ssociation areas during the recall (Wilcoxon rank sum test, P = 0.001) of memorized images.

220 sensory areas during the encoding (Wilcoxon rank sum test, P = 0.002) and in the higher-order cortic

221 ic rating scale in the past 3 days (Wilcoxon rank sum test, P = 0.0175), 5-D itch scale (P = 0.0146),

222 erent between fathers and children (Wilcoxon rank-sum test, P < .002).

223 diatric ICUs without such programs (Wilcoxon rank-sum test, p = .020).

224 0; P <.001) and were younger (69 v 73 years, rank sum test; P <.001), more likely to be married (59%

225 was detected for 49% of the miRNAs (Wilcoxon rank sum test; P<0.01).

226 r than that among women without MS (Wilcoxon rank-sum test; P = 0.002).

227 han emmetropic children (chi(2) and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests; P < 0.024).

228 arisons were performed using either Wilcoxon rank sum test, Pearson's Chi-squared test or Fisher's ex

229 ssessed by using Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon rank sum tests (phantom data) and mixed-effect models (i

230 dd new analysis to confirm that the Wilcoxon rank-sum test remains the most robust method compared to

231 yzed with the two-tailed t test and Wilcoxon rank sum test, respectively, to determine significance o

232 ared with Fisher exact test and the Wilcoxon rank sum test, respectively.

233 by using the two-sample t test and Wilcoxon rank sum test, respectively.

234 alized estimating equations and the Wilcoxon rank sum test, respectively.

235 lysis included Kruskal-Wallis test, Wilcoxon rank sum test, Spearman correlation coefficient, multipl

236 statistics, non-paired t-test, Mann-Whitney rank sum test, Spearman rank order correlation and Pears

237 Shapiro-Wilk test, paired two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test, Spearman rho correlation, and multiple li

238 Analyses used 2-sided t tests, Wilcoxon rank sum tests, Spearman correlation coefficients, linea

239 ed using chi-square tests, t tests, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, Spearman correlations, cluster analysis,

240 Student t test) and nonparametric (Wilcoxon rank sum test) statistics.

241 Wilcoxon rank sum tests, student's t-tests and (multivariate) lin

242 The two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test, Student t test, test for linear regressio

243 of the study subjects based on the Wilcoxon rank sum test, t-score, cat-score, binary discriminant a

244 span a number of approaches such as Wilcoxon rank sum test, t-test, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, permutat

245 gnificance level based on a 2-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test, t(53) = 2.59).

246 tional DGE analysis (e.g., the t test or the rank sum test) tests each gene independently without con

247 inferiority test (one-sided, paired Wilcoxon rank-sum test) the network performed as well as each rad

248 n-Whitney U test (equivalent to the Wilcoxon rank sum test), the Wilcoxon signed rank test, and the s

249 stical analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, the Fisher exact test, and Kaplan-Meier

250 ary risk factors were assessed with Wilcoxon rank sum test; those with continuous risk factors, with

251 We used the Wilcoxon rank sum test to assess cost, length of stay, and mortal

252 By default, we use the Wilcoxon rank sum test to compute the p-values, since it is a rob

253 mic and pandemic periods, using the Wilcoxon rank sum test to determine significance.

254 We used Fisher's exact and Wilcoxon rank sum tests to analyse clinical features, and surviva

255 zed with descriptive statistics and Wilcoxon rank sum tests to evaluate differences.

256 Results were analyzed by using the Wilcoxon rank sum test, two-tailed Fisher exact test, and multiva

257 Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum tests, two-sample t tests, and chi(2) tests wer

258 A Wilcoxon rank sum test was also performed among participants who

259 Wilcoxon rank sum test was used for continuous variables and the

260 Wilcoxon rank sum test was used for continuous variables.

261 The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used for quantitative comparisons.

262 The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to assess differences between mut

263 The Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric rank sum test was used to assess equality of population

264 Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to assess pairwise comparisons of

265 The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to assess the difference in axis

266 A Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare patients with and thos

267 Exact Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare performance with learn

268 The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the median ADC values

269 Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to evaluate differences in rate o

270 The Mann-Whitney rank sum test was used to identify parameters with the b

271 The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to test the association between s

272 gnificant and significant cancer, a Wilcoxon rank sum test was used.

273 A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was performed to compare ocular findings b

274 The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was performed.

275 The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to assess the significance of mea

276 further development, the F1 score (Wilcoxon rank sum test) was again used.

277 to limma-voom, NOISeq, dearseq, and Wilcoxon rank-sum test, we found that FDR control is often failed

278 Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon rank sum test were used for statistical analysis, and al

279 Dunnett post hoc test and Wilcoxon rank sum test were used to compare differences between t

280 The kappa statistic and Wilcoxon rank sum test were used to determine agreement and compa

281 Asymptotic Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney rank sum tests were employed to compare glaucoma subgrou

282 ble analysis using Fisher exact and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were performed to compare responders and

283 ltivariate logistic regression, and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were performed.

284 Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to assess the association betwe

285 The Fisher exact and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to define the accuracy of imagi

286 Chi-squared, Cochran-Armitage, and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to examine associations between

287 The Kruskal-Wallis test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test were used for continuous variables when co

288 are proportions, Student t test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test were used to compare means, and the log-ra

289 Chi(2) And Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were performed in bivariate analyses to e

290 Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to compare changes between grou

291 Fisher's exact and non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to identify significant differe

292 nd rate of volume change per month (Wilcoxon rank sum test) were compared.

293 hout errors were assessed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test when applicable.

294 ally used such as t-tests and non-parametric rank-sum tests, when the sample size is small.

295 f variance, two-sample t tests, and Wilcoxon rank sum tests where appropriate.

296 stic software package in R, and the Wilcoxon rank sum test with continuity correction.

297 ysis consisted of the nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test with the NPAR1WAY program.

298 yes were analyzed using a clustered Wilcoxon rank sum test with the Rosner-Glynn-Lee method.

299 e and placebo (P < 0.05 by paired Wilcoxon's rank sum test), with a significant benefit between group

300 reatment groups were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum tests, with P values adjusted for false discove