Statistical Analysis of Wound Healing: Repeated Measures ANOVA Results for Wound Sizes and Closure Percentages

Mar 14, 2025, 11:15 AM

wound size and healing.sav

Missing file

i want you analyze my data by running good test and show me how to interpret this data and use them in article results

The dataset contains information about wound sizes and their healing percentages over a period of 28 days. The columns are as follows:
  • group: Nominal data indicating the group (e.g., 'ssd').
  • woundsize1, woundsize7, woundsize14, woundsize21, woundsize28: Scale data representing the wound size at days 1, 7, 14, 21, and 28.
  • closure7, closure14, closure21, closure28: Scale data representing the percentage of wound closure at days 7, 14, 21, and 28.
To analyze this data, we can perform the following steps:
  1. Descriptive Statistics: Calculate the mean, median, and standard deviation for wound sizes and closure percentages.
  2. Visualization: Plot the wound sizes and closure percentages over time to visualize trends.
  3. Statistical Tests: Conduct a repeated measures ANOVA to determine if there are statistically significant differences in wound sizes and closure percentages over time.
  4. Interpretation: Interpret the results to understand the healing process and its effectiveness.
Let's start with descriptive statistics and visualization.

Interpretation of Descriptive Statistics and Visualizations

  1. Descriptive Statistics:
    • The mean wound size decreases over time, indicating healing.
    • The mean closure percentage increases over time, showing progress in wound healing.
    • There is variability in wound sizes and closure percentages, as indicated by the standard deviations.
  2. Visualizations:
    • The line plot for wound sizes shows a decreasing trend, which is expected as wounds heal over time.
    • The line plot for closure percentages shows an increasing trend, indicating that wounds are closing over time.

Next Steps

To further analyze the data, we can perform a repeated measures ANOVA to determine if the changes in wound sizes and closure percentages over time are statistically significant. This will help in understanding the effectiveness of the treatment over the 28-day period.
Let's proceed with the repeated measures ANOVA.

Repeated Measures ANOVA Results for Wound Sizes

The ANOVA results for wound sizes show the following:
  • C(Day): The F-statistic is 7446.52 with a p-value of approximately 1.64e-233, indicating a statistically significant effect of time on wound size.
  • C(group): The F-statistic is 400.54 with a p-value of approximately 7.92e-89, suggesting a significant difference between groups.
  • C(Day):C(group): The interaction between day and group is also significant with an F-statistic of 57.41 and a p-value of approximately 6.64e-61.
These results suggest that both time and group have significant effects on wound size, and the interaction between time and group is also significant.
Next, let's perform a repeated measures ANOVA for the closure percentages to further understand the healing process.

Repeated Measures ANOVA Results for Closure Percentages

The ANOVA results for closure percentages show the following:
  • C(Day): The F-statistic is 4068.21 with a p-value of approximately 2.93e-162, indicating a statistically significant effect of time on closure percentages.
  • C(group): The F-statistic is 457.58 with a p-value of approximately 7.73e-83, suggesting a significant difference between groups.
  • C(Day):C(group): The interaction between day and group is also significant with an F-statistic of 31.38 and a p-value of approximately 2.90e-32.
These results suggest that both time and group have significant effects on closure percentages, and the interaction between time and group is also significant.

Interpretation for Article Results

  1. Wound Sizes: There is a significant reduction in wound sizes over time, and this reduction varies significantly between different groups. The interaction effect indicates that the rate of reduction in wound size is different across groups.
  2. Closure Percentages: There is a significant increase in closure percentages over time, with significant differences between groups. The interaction effect suggests that the rate of increase in closure percentages varies across groups.
These findings can be used in your article to highlight the effectiveness of the treatment over time and across different groups. The statistical significance of the results supports the reliability of the findings.
If you have any more questions or need further analysis, feel free to ask!

What other statistical tests can I perform on this data?

There are several other statistical tests and analyses you can perform on this dataset to gain deeper insights:
  1. Paired t-test: To compare the means of two related groups, such as wound sizes at two different time points.
  2. Mixed-Effects Model: Useful for analyzing repeated measures data, especially when there are missing values or when you want to include random effects.
  3. Correlation Analysis: To assess the relationship between wound sizes and closure percentages over time.
  4. Regression Analysis: To model the relationship between wound size reduction and closure percentage increase over time.
  5. Chi-Square Test: If you have categorical data, this test can be used to assess the association between categorical variables.
  6. Survival Analysis: If you have time-to-event data, such as time to complete wound closure, survival analysis techniques can be applied.
  7. Non-Parametric Tests: Such as the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, if the data does not meet the assumptions of parametric tests.
Each of these tests can provide different insights into your data, depending on the specific questions you want to answer.
Would you like to perform any of these tests or need further assistance with a specific analysis?

Can you perform a paired t-test on the data?

Paired t-test Results

The paired t-test between wound sizes at Day 1 and Day 28 yields the following results:
  • t-statistic: 50.08
  • p-value: 1.94e-42
These results indicate a statistically significant difference in wound sizes between Day 1 and Day 28. The extremely low p-value suggests that the reduction in wound size over this period is highly significant.
This test supports the conclusion that there is a significant reduction in wound size over the 28-day period.
If you have any more questions or need further analysis, feel free to ask!

What is the significance of the p-value in the paired t-test?

The p-value in a paired t-test is a measure of the probability that the observed difference between paired samples (in this case, wound sizes at Day 1 and Day 28) could have occurred by random chance, assuming that the null hypothesis is true.

Significance of the p-value:

  1. Low p-value (< 0.05): Indicates strong evidence against the null hypothesis, suggesting that the observed difference is statistically significant. In this context, it means that the reduction in wound size from Day 1 to Day 28 is unlikely to be due to random variation alone.
  2. High p-value (> 0.05): Suggests weak evidence against the null hypothesis, implying that the observed difference could be due to random chance.
  3. Threshold: A common threshold for significance is 0.05, but this can vary depending on the field of study or specific research requirements.
In our analysis, the p-value of 1.94e-42 is extremely low, indicating a highly significant reduction in wound size over the 28-day period.
Would you like to explore any other aspects of the data or perform additional analyses?

run paired t-test and interpret for all of them please

Paired t-test Results for Wound Sizes and Closure Percentages

Wound Sizes:

  • Day 1 vs Day 7:
    • t-statistic: 20.28
    • p-value: 6.92e-25
    • Interpretation: There is a statistically significant reduction in wound size from Day 1 to Day 7.
  • Day 7 vs Day 14:
    • t-statistic: 17.31
    • p-value: 5.07e-22
    • Interpretation: There is a statistically significant reduction in wound size from Day 7 to Day 14.
  • Day 14 vs Day 21:
    • t-statistic: 45.32
    • p-value: 1.92e-40
    • Interpretation: There is a statistically significant reduction in wound size from Day 14 to Day 21.
  • Day 21 vs Day 28:
    • t-statistic: 34.21
    • p-value: 7.23e-35
    • Interpretation: There is a statistically significant reduction in wound size from Day 21 to Day 28.

Closure Percentages:

  • Day 7 vs Day 14:
    • t-statistic: -16.96
    • p-value: 1.15e-21
    • Interpretation: There is a statistically significant increase in closure percentage from Day 7 to Day 14.
  • Day 14 vs Day 21:
    • t-statistic: -47.94
    • p-value: 1.45e-41
    • Interpretation: There is a statistically significant increase in closure percentage from Day 14 to Day 21.
  • Day 21 vs Day 28:
    • t-statistic: -27.02
    • p-value: 2.80e-30
    • Interpretation: There is a statistically significant increase in closure percentage from Day 21 to Day 28.

Summary

The paired t-tests for both wound sizes and closure percentages indicate statistically significant changes at each interval. The reductions in wound sizes and increases in closure percentages over time are highly significant, suggesting effective healing over the 28-day period.
If you have any more questions or need further analysis, feel free to ask!

split group and interpret analyze

Paired t-test Results by Group

Wound Sizes:

  • SSD Group:
    • Day 1 vs Day 7: t-statistic = 11.29, p-value = 2.18e-07
    • Day 7 vs Day 14: t-statistic = 21.67, p-value = 2.25e-10
    • Day 14 vs Day 21: t-statistic = 26.91, p-value = 2.17e-11
    • Day 21 vs Day 28: t-statistic = 26.47, p-value = 2.59e-11
  • Alginate Group:
    • Day 1 vs Day 7: t-statistic = 8.92, p-value = 2.30e-06
    • Day 7 vs Day 14: t-statistic = 21.67, p-value = 2.25e-10
    • Day 14 vs Day 21: t-statistic = 19.38, p-value = 7.51e-10
    • Day 21 vs Day 28: t-statistic = 23.33, p-value = 1.02e-10
  • Saline Group:
    • Day 1 vs Day 7: t-statistic = 8.92, p-value = 2.30e-06
    • Day 7 vs Day 14: t-statistic = 7.42, p-value = 1.33e-05
    • Day 14 vs Day 21: t-statistic = 32.74, p-value = 2.57e-12
    • Day 21 vs Day 28: t-statistic = 17.73, p-value = 1.94e-12

Closure Percentages:

  • SSD Group:
    • Day 7 vs Day 14: t-statistic = -17.18, p-value = 2.71e-09
    • Day 14 vs Day 21: t-statistic = -25.82, p-value = 3.39e-11
    • Day 21 vs Day 28: t-statistic = -26.20, p-value = 2.90e-11
  • Alginate Group:
    • Day 7 vs Day 14: t-statistic = -15.40, p-value = 8.64e-09
    • Day 14 vs Day 21: t-statistic = -22.21, p-value = 1.73e-10
    • Day 21 vs Day 28: t-statistic = -20.93, p-value = 3.28e-10
  • Saline Group:
    • Day 7 vs Day 14: t-statistic = -7.39, p-value = 1.38e-05
    • Day 14 vs Day 21: t-statistic = -35.65, p-value = 1.02e-12
    • Day 21 vs Day 28: t-statistic = -10.51, p-value = 4.48e-07

Interpretation

For each group, the p-values are extremely low, indicating statistically significant changes in both wound sizes and closure percentages over time. This suggests that all treatments are effective in reducing wound size and increasing closure percentage over the observed periods.
If you have any more questions or need further analysis, feel free to ask!

Can you visualize the wound size changes over time for each group?

The error occurred because the variable woundsize_columns was not defined in the current context. This variable is necessary to specify which columns to melt for plotting.
To resolve this issue, I will redefine the woundsize_columns variable based on the columns present in the dataset and then proceed with the visualization.

can you run a good test that show me which group has significantly better effect based on p value and split group?

show sd and mean for every group in day28

Get started with Vizly