These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
167 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1805322)
1. Application of the McNemar test to non-independent matched pair data. Eliasziw M; Donner A Stat Med; 1991 Dec; 10(12):1981-91. PubMed ID: 1805322 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The validity and power of tests for equality of two correlated proportions. May WL; Johnson WD Stat Med; 1997 May; 16(10):1081-96. PubMed ID: 9179976 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A note on the tests for clustered matched-pair binary data. Yang Z; Sun X; Hardin JW Biom J; 2010 Oct; 52(5):638-52. PubMed ID: 20976694 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The conditional binomial test revisited for clinical trials. Lei X; Davis D; Kuan L; Lee J; Oh S J Biopharm Stat; 1998 Nov; 8(4):533-43. PubMed ID: 9855032 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Improving and extending the McNemar test using the Bayesian method. Ogura T; Yanagimoto T Stat Med; 2016 Jun; 35(14):2455-66. PubMed ID: 26783041 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Testing homogeneity of stratum effects in stratified paired binary data. Zhao YD; Rahardja D; Wang DH; Shen H J Biopharm Stat; 2014; 24(3):600-7. PubMed ID: 24697196 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Estimation of the common risk difference in stratified paired binary data with homogeneous stratum effect. Zhao YD; Rahardja D J Biopharm Stat; 2013; 23(4):848-55. PubMed ID: 23786205 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A note on interval estimation of the relative difference in data with matched pairs. Lui KJ Stat Med; 1998 Jul; 17(13):1509-15. PubMed ID: 9695195 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Confidence intervals for the difference of marginal probabilities in clustered matched-pair binary data. Yang Z; Sun X; Hardin JW Pharm Stat; 2012; 11(5):386-93. PubMed ID: 22684766 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Homogeneity test of difference between two correlated proportions in stratified matched-pair studies. Tang NS; Zhang B; Li HQ J Biopharm Stat; 2013; 23(6):1261-80. PubMed ID: 24138431 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Detecting data fabrication in clinical trials from cluster analysis perspective. Wu X; Carlsson M Pharm Stat; 2011; 10(3):257-64. PubMed ID: 20936626 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A comparative study of matched pair designs with two binary endpoints. Jiang Y; Xu J Stat Methods Med Res; 2017 Dec; 26(6):2526-2542. PubMed ID: 26294329 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of statistical methods for analysis of clustered binary observations. Heo M; Leon AC Stat Med; 2005 Mar; 24(6):911-23. PubMed ID: 15558576 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A new exact and more powerful unconditional test of no treatment effect from binary matched pairs. Lloyd CJ Biometrics; 2008 Sep; 64(3):716-723. PubMed ID: 18047530 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. On the comparison of correlated proportions for clustered data. Obuchowski NA Stat Med; 1998 Jul; 17(13):1495-507. PubMed ID: 9695194 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A robust likelihood approach to inference about the difference between two multinomial distributions in paired designs. Tsou TS Stat Methods Med Res; 2018 Oct; 27(10):3077-3091. PubMed ID: 29298613 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A comparison of the statistical power of different methods for the analysis of cluster randomization trials with binary outcomes. Austin PC Stat Med; 2007 Aug; 26(19):3550-65. PubMed ID: 17238238 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A signed-rank test for clustered data. Datta S; Satten GA Biometrics; 2008 Jun; 64(2):501-7. PubMed ID: 17970820 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]