## Groups Comparison(组比较)研究综述

Groups Comparison 组比较 - Between-groups comparisons showed better effects on all analyzed variables for COD-12.^{[1]}Exploratory factor analysis, Pearson’s correlation, known-groups comparison, and Cronbach’s alpha were used for analysis.

^{[2]}The intragroups comparisons were applied: paired t-test, ANOVA followed by Tukey, Wilcoxon test, and Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn test.

^{[3]}Between-groups comparisons showed significantly greater improvements in pain, function and PPT in the Ex+DN group (P<0.

^{[4]}In this study, which has pre-test and post-test control group design, the assessments were made with between-groups and within-groups comparisons.

^{[5]}Statistics were performed using StatView software for descriptive analysis and χ for the sub-groups comparisons.

^{[6]}Probably, it should be taken into account that while surgical activity requires the maintenance of a prolonged nearly fixed standing position, a non-surgical medical activity is characterized by a Table 1: Characteristics of the study sample and groups comparisons.

^{[7]}Participants were grouped as “met” or “not met” based on minimal clinically important changes and between groups comparisons conducted.

^{[8]}Between-groups comparisons were also done according to the MRI grading.

^{[9]}In the post-TBS inter-groups comparison, increased ReHo was seen in right middle occipital gyrus and decreased ReHo in right middle frontal gyrus and right postcentral gyrus (cTBS vs.

^{[10]}In the between-groups comparison, significant difference in muscle strength was found at RPF30°, LPF30°, LDF30°, RDF90°, LPF90°, and LDF90° (p<0.

^{[11]}Results: Between-groups comparisons of the static and stabilometry podobarometric data with eyes open showed statistically significant differences (p < 0.

^{[12]}Between-groups comparison of the neutral trials showed that the high-rate group demonstrated a lower proportion of /a:/ responses, indicating that Talker A’s habitual speech rate sounded slower when B was faster.

^{[13]}In the within and between-groups comparisons of the pretest and posttest achievement scores of the experimental and control groups and their retention test scores, two-way variance analysis was used.

^{[14]}Groups comparison were significant, showing high effects in mostly cases.

^{[15]}Independent t-tests were used for between-groups comparisons and Pearson correlation coefficients were used to investigate the association between the outcomes.

^{[16]}Spearman's correlations and known‐groups comparisons supported construct validity.

^{[17]}Data were analyzed using paired t-tests and one-way ANOVA for within and between groups comparison, respectively, using SPSS version 10.

^{[18]}Within-group and between groups comparison were analyzed using ANOVA, and Scheffes’ posthoc tests by using SPSS 21.

^{[19]}Results The onset time for sensory and motor blocks in intergroups comparisons showed nonsignificant difference between groups II and III.

^{[20]}Validity was assessed using both exploratory and confirmatory factors analysis, known-groups comparison (abused and non-abused elderly) also was administered.

^{[21]}Other useful demographics for further studies were also collected for future subgroups comparisons.

^{[22]}Statistical Analysis: Univariate analysis and analysis of variance for between-groups comparison.

^{[23]}Therefore, the article’s between groups comparisons are valid; however, their metric results do not represent true bone biomechanical parameters.

^{[24]}0, groups comparison was done with X2, survival was analyzed with Kaplan-meier method and comparison among groups with log-rank.

^{[25]}The authors performed a principal component analysis and investigated internal consistency, construct validity, inter-rater reliability, known-groups comparisons and floor and ceiling effects.

^{[26]}Between-groups comparisons showed that the species richness was strongly correlated between birds and plants, followed by between raptors and birds; correlations between birds and mammals, reptiles and mammals and raptors and plants were weak albeit statistically significant.

^{[27]}Before–after between groups comparison (t-test) was used for statistical analysis of the outcome, with two measurement points (GerdQ), while repeated-measures ANOVA was used for those outcomes with four measurement points (CROM and PPT).

^{[28]}Between-groups comparisons were performed for vestibular symptoms and provocation scores on the VOMS (smooth pursuit, saccades, convergence, vestibular/ocular reflex, visual motion sensitivity), NPC (average distance), and K-D (time).

^{[29]}Importantly, the recently identified factors that could be disrupting the between groups comparisons were controlled for, and both groups were matched.

^{[30]}Three meta-analyses across three sub-groups comparisons were performed.

^{[31]}Construct validation included known-groups comparisons, associations with psychological distress, and convergence with existing discrimination measures.

^{[32]}Forty-five of the 53 known-groups comparisons were significantly different and were used for calculating the RV.

^{[33]}

组间比较显示对 COD-12 的所有分析变量的效果更好。

^{[1]}探索性因素分析、Pearson 相关性、已知组比较和 Cronbach α 用于分析。

^{[2]}应用了组内比较：配对 t 检验、ANOVA，然后是 Tukey、Wilcoxon 检验和 Kruskal-Wallis 检验，然后是 Dunn 检验。

^{[3]}组间比较显示，Ex+DN 组在疼痛、功能和 PPT 方面有显着改善（P<0.

^{[4]}在这项具有前测和后测对照组设计的研究中，评估是通过组间和组内比较进行的。

^{[5]}统计使用 StatView 软件进行描述性分析，并使用 χ2 进行亚组比较。

^{[6]}可能应该考虑到，虽然手术活动需要维持长时间的几乎固定的站立姿势，但非手术医疗活动的特点是表 1：研究样本的特征和组比较。

^{[7]}根据最小的临床重要变化和进行的组间比较，将参与者分为“满足”或“未满足”。

^{[8]}组间比较也根据 MRI 分级进行。

^{[9]}在 TBS 后组间比较中，右侧枕中回 ReHo 增加，右侧额中回和右侧中央后回 ReHo 减少（cTBS vs.

^{[10]}在组间比较中，RPF30°、LPF30°、LDF30°、RDF90°、LPF90°和LDF90°的肌肉力量存在显着差异（p<0.

^{[11]}结果：睁眼时静态和稳定性足压测量数据的组间比较显示出统计学上显着差异（p < 0.

^{[12]}中性试验的组间比较表明，高速率组的 /a:/ 响应比例较低，表明说话者 A 的习惯性语速在 B 更快时听起来更慢。

^{[13]}在对实验组和对照组的前测和后测成绩分数及其保留测试分数进行组内和组间比较时，使用了双向方差分析。

^{[14]}组比较是显着的，在大多数情况下显示出很高的效果。

^{[15]}独立 t 检验用于组间比较，Pearson 相关系数用于研究结果之间的关联。

^{[16]}Spearman 的相关性和已知组比较支持结构效度。

^{[17]}使用 SPSS 版本 10 分别使用配对 t 检验和单向 ANOVA 分析组内和组间比较的数据。

^{[18]}使用 ANOVA 分析组内和组间比较，使用 SPSS 21 分析 Scheffes 事后检验。

^{[19]}结果 组间比较中感觉和运动阻滞的发生时间显示组 II 和 III 之间没有显着差异。

^{[20]}使用探索性和验证性因素分析评估有效性，还进行了已知组比较（受虐待和未受虐待的老年人）。

^{[21]}还收集了用于进一步研究的其他有用的人口统计数据，用于未来的亚组比较。

^{[22]}统计分析：组间比较的单变量分析和方差分析。

^{[23]}因此，文章的组间比较是有效的；然而，他们的度量结果并不代表真正的骨骼生物力学参数。

^{[24]}0，组间比较采用X2，生存率分析采用Kaplan-meier法，组间比较采用log-rank。

^{[25]}作者进行了主成分分析，并调查了内部一致性、结构效度、评分者间信度、已知组比较以及地板和天花板效应。

^{[26]}组间比较表明，鸟类和植物的物种丰富度呈强相关性，猛禽和鸟类次之；鸟类与哺乳动物、爬行动物与哺乳动物、猛禽与植物之间的相关性较弱，尽管具有统计学意义。

^{[27]}组间比较（t检验）用于结果的统计分析，具有两个测量点（GerdQ），而重复测量方差分析用于具有四个测量点（CROM和PPT）的结果。

^{[28]}对前庭症状和 VOMS（平滑追踪、扫视、会聚、前庭/眼反射、视觉运动敏感性）、NPC（平均距离）和 K-D（时间）的激发评分进行组间比较。

^{[29]}重要的是，控制了最近发现的可能破坏组间比较的因素，并且两组都匹配。

^{[30]}对三个亚组比较进行了三项荟萃分析。

^{[31]}构建验证包括已知组比较、与心理困扰的关联以及与现有歧视措施的融合。

^{[32]}53 个已知组比较中有 45 个存在显着差异，用于计算 RV。

^{[33]}

## Between Groups Comparison 组间比较

Between groups comparisons showed that a priming effect occurred only in typical readers.^{[1]}Between groups comparisons (% baseline change) revealed significant differences in ALT (p = 0.

^{[2]}Between groups comparison provided surprising results as the only significant difference showed higher ME in the recent SCI group.

^{[3]}Between groups comparison for novice versus improver was investigated by Mann-Whitney U tests (p ≤ 0.

^{[4]}Between groups comparisons revealed lower levels of arachidonic acid in children with ADHD and stronger NIRS signal in TD participants, especially when completing more difficult tasks.

^{[5]}Between groups comparisons demonstrated significant differences in basal HR and post-PPT Tre immediately after outdoor PPT.

^{[6]}Between groups comparison was performed with P < 0.

^{[7]}Between groups comparison did not evidence any significant variation of respiratory parameters across time or health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at day-90.

^{[8]}

组间比较表明，启动效应只发生在典型读者身上。

^{[1]}组间比较（基线变化百分比）揭示了 ALT 的显着差异（p = 0.

^{[2]}组间比较提供了令人惊讶的结果，因为唯一的显着差异显示最近 SCI 组的 ME 较高。

^{[3]}通过 Mann-Whitney U 检验研究了新手与改进者的组间比较（p ≤ 0.

^{[4]}组间比较显示，多动症儿童的花生四烯酸水平较低，而 TD 参与者的 NIRS 信号更强，尤其是在完成更困难的任务时。

^{[5]}nan

^{[6]}nan

^{[7]}nan

^{[8]}

## Known Groups Comparison 已知组比较

The internal consistency, test-retest reliability, known groups comparison and criterion validity were assessed.^{[1]}In a known groups comparison, the SBQ discriminated SAD patients (n = 86) from both nonseasonal major depressive disorder (MDD) patients (n = 30) and healthy controls (n = 110), whereas a generic measure of depressogenic cognitive vulnerability (the Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale [DAS]) discriminated MDD patients from the other groups.

^{[2]}

评估了内部一致性、重测信度、已知组比较和标准效度。

^{[1]}在已知的组比较中，SBQ 将 SAD 患者 (n = 86) 与非季节性重度抑郁症 (MDD) 患者 (n = 30) 和健康对照组 (n = 110) 区分开来，而对抑郁症认知脆弱性的通用测量（功能失调的态度量表 [DAS]）将 MDD 患者与其他组区分开来。

^{[2]}

## Two Groups Comparison 两组比较

In statistical analyzes, t-tests were used in two groups comparisons, while the effects of other variables on average speed and cardiovascular parameters were determined by two way analyzes of variance.^{[1]}The comparison of normally distributed continuous variables between the two groups was performed using Student’s t test and for more than two groups comparison done through ANOVA test.

^{[2]}

在统计分析中，在两组比较中使用了 t 检验，而其他变量对平均速度和心血管参数的影响通过双向方差分析确定。

^{[1]}两组之间的正态分布连续变量的比较使用学生 t 检验进行，超过两组的比较通过 ANOVA 检验进行。

^{[2]}