4.7 Article

EX-TRACT: An excel tool for the estimation of standard deviations from published articles

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL MODELLING & SOFTWARE
卷 147, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2021.105236

关键词

Data extraction; Standard deviation; Meta-analysis; Excel (c) tool; ANOVA

资金

  1. European Joint Programme SOIL [862695]
  2. European Union's Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, LANDSUPPORT project [H2020-RUR-2017-2, 774234]
  3. Doctoral School of Agriculture, Environment, and Bioenergy
  4. Doctoral School of the University of Milan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study developed a new Excel tool for extracting standard deviations from ANOVA and MCT results to facilitate the correct execution of statistical techniques like Meta-analysis. The tool includes four methods for extraction, applicable to various experimental designs, and its performance was tested in a case study.
Meta-analysis, power analysis, and sensitivity analysis are widespread statistical techniques, which can be correctly performed only if variability statistics, such as standard deviation, are available; however, standard deviations are often missing in published articles. This work illustrates the functionality and the versatility of a newly developed Excel (c) tool for the standard deviation extraction from ANOVA and Multiple Comparison Test (MCT) results. The tool implements four methods, which can be alternatively applied according to the available statistics usually reported in ANOVA and/or MCT tables and graphs: 1) least significant difference (LSD), 2) significance level (p(F)), 3) letters for means separation assigned by MCT, 4) a range of significance level, indicated by stars. The tool can be applied in one, two and three-way factorial experiments arranged in complete randomization, randomized block, split-plot or split-block. The performances of the different methods were tested in a case study about meta-analysis database preparation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据