RESUMO
The purpose of this paper was to introduce the model， calculation formulas and the SAS implementation of the univariate analysis of variance for the quantitative data with randomized complete block design. In the calculation， two test statistics were involved， namely FA and FB. Among them， the subscript "A" represented the experimental factor， and the subscript "B" represented the block factor （i.e.， the important non-experimental factor）. In general， it was assumed that there was no or negligible interaction between the two factors in a randomized block design， so there was no need to assess whether the interaction term was statistically significant. Therefore， it was not necessary to do repeated experiments under each combination of two factors. With the help of SAS software， this paper conducted the analysis of variance for the quantitative data with randomized complete block design for two instances without and with repeated experiments， gave the calculation results， and made the statistical and professional conclusions.
RESUMO
Objective@#To explore the differences among three methods of nucleic acid extraction and three kinds of real-time fluorescence quantitative PCR instrument.@*Methods@#Twenty-five respiratory virus nucleic acid and 25 enterovirus nucleic acid positive samples were with selected at random and nucleic acids were extracted by using three methods (method A, B, and C). The results among different methods were analyzed by randomized block design. 25 respiratory viral nucleic acid positive specimens and enterovirus nucleic acid positive samples were detected by using three kinds of real-time fluorescence quantitative PCR instrument (instrument A, B, and C). The results among different instruments were analyzed by randomized block design.@*Results@#There was a significant difference among three methods of nucleic acid extraction in results(χ2=42.9162, P<0.001), in which method A and C had not significant difference(Z=0.837, P=0.3816>0.05), while method A vs. B, B vs. C were significantly different(Z=7.025, P<0.001; Z=7.9, P<0.001). There was also a significant difference among three kinds of real-time fluorescence quantitative PCR instrument in results(χ2=23.773, P<0.001), in which instrument B and C had no significant difference(Z=0.75, P=0.4533>0.05), while instrument A vs. B, A vs. C were significantly different(Z=5.70, P<0.001; Z=6.45, P<0.001).@*Conclusions@#There is difference among different methods and instruments in the test results under the same condition, which call for options in practical work according to need.