Table 3.
Results of Statistical Analysis for Individual Groups
| p value | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Groups compared | IFA phase I | IFA II phase II | IFA phase I or II | ELISA IgM phase II | ELISA IgG phase II | ELISA IgG phase I | ELISA phase I or II | CFT phase II |
| Dębno vs. Tarnogród | 0.0014* | 0.00056* | 0.00007* | 1 | 0.23421 | 1 | 0.78809 | 0.67228 |
| Dębno vs. Krosno | 0.36055 | 0.19594 | 0.17192 | 0.56618 | 0.14222 | 1 | 0.0711 | 1 |
| Dębno vs. Gliwice | 0.05735 | 0.02715* | 0.03646* | 0.29631 | 0.27934 | 0.0515 | 1 | 1 |
| Dębno vs. Chodzież | 0.34512 | 0.00002 | 0.25041 | 0.47857 | 0.03149* | 0.7219 | 0.32943 | 0.22174 |
| Dębno vs. Ciechanów | 0.03036* | 0.10208 | 0.04251* | 1 | 0.22746 | 1 | 0.21025 | 0.07215 |
| Tarnogród vs. Krosno | 0.44171 | 0.44171 | 0.44171 | 0.56102 | 0.56102 | 1 | 0.14615 | 1 |
| Tarnogród vs. Gliwice | 1 | 1 | 0.30031 | 0.29753 | 1 | 0.07547 | 0.72752 | 0.56019 |
| Tarnogród vs. Chodzież | 0.00511* | 1 | 0.00037* | 0.32191 | 0.77498 | 1 | 0.48113 | 0.57665 |
| Tarnogród vs. Ciechanów | 1 | 0.52973 | 0.52973 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.23231 | 0.15632 |
| Krosno vs. Gliwice | 1 | 1 | 1 | — | 0.51471 | 0.23739 | 0.10229 | — |
| Krosno vs. Chodzież | 0.65707 | 0.44699 | 0.39216 | 1 | 0.58194 | 1 | 0.18085 | 0.58496 |
| Krosno vs. Ciechanów | 0.42857 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | — | 1 | 0.20879 |
| Gliwice vs. Chodzież | 0.15881 | 1 | 0.18767 | 0.58561 | 1 | 0.0676 | 0.31279 | 0.19688 |
| Gliwice vs. Ciechanów | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.42105 | 1 | 0.1032 | 0.17699 | 0.05779 |
| Chodzież vs. Ciechanów | 0.05342 | 0.54122 | 0.13893 | 1 | 1 | 0.58645 | 0.43153 | 0.35907 |
*
The differences are statistically significant at the level α=0.05.
IFA, indirect fluorescent antibody; ELISA, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assy; CFT, complement fixation test.