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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

123 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1876801)

  • 1. A quasi-exact test for comparing two binomial proportions.
    Hirji KF; Tan SJ; Elashoff RM
    Stat Med; 1991 Jul; 10(7):1137-53. PubMed ID: 1876801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Power comparison of two-sided exact tests for association in 2 x 2 contingency tables using standard, mid p and randomized test versions.
    Lydersen S; Laake P
    Stat Med; 2003 Dec; 22(24):3859-71. PubMed ID: 14673943
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Tests for the homogeneity of two binomial proportions in extremely unbalanced 2 x 2 contingency tables.
    Kang SH; Ahn CW
    Stat Med; 2008 Jun; 27(14):2524-35. PubMed ID: 17847031
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A quasi-exact method for the confidence intervals of the difference of two independent binomial proportions in small sample cases.
    Chen X
    Stat Med; 2002 Mar; 21(6):943-56. PubMed ID: 11870826
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Confidence intervals based on some weighting functions for the difference of two binomial proportions.
    Maruo K; Kawai N
    Stat Med; 2014 Jun; 33(13):2288-96. PubMed ID: 24644149
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Dealing with discreteness: making 'exact' confidence intervals for proportions, differences of proportions, and odds ratios more exact.
    Agresti A
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2003 Jan; 12(1):3-21. PubMed ID: 12617505
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The analysis of 2 x 1 and 2 x 2 contingency tables: an historical review.
    Richardson JT
    Stat Methods Med Res; 1994; 3(2):107-33. PubMed ID: 7952428
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Chi 2 tests: how useful are they in the analysis of medical research data?
    Osborn JF
    Ann Ig; 1989; 1(3-4):417-32. PubMed ID: 2483622
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Exact unconditional tests for a 2 x 2 matched-pairs design.
    Berger RL; Sidik K
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2003 Mar; 12(2):91-108. PubMed ID: 12665205
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. How conservative is Fisher's exact test? A quantitative evaluation of the two-sample comparative binomial trial.
    Crans GG; Shuster JJ
    Stat Med; 2008 Aug; 27(18):3598-611. PubMed ID: 18338319
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Confidence intervals for the difference between independent binomial proportions: comparison using a graphical approach and moving averages.
    Laud PJ; Dane A
    Pharm Stat; 2014; 13(5):294-308. PubMed ID: 25163425
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The mid p-value in exact tests for Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium.
    Graffelman J; Moreno V
    Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol; 2013 Aug; 12(4):433-48. PubMed ID: 23934608
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A discussion on significance indices for contingency tables under small sample sizes.
    Oliveira NL; Pereira CAB; Diniz MA; Polpo A
    PLoS One; 2018; 13(8):e0199102. PubMed ID: 30071022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Analysing 2 × 2 contingency tables: which test is best?
    Ludbrook J
    Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol; 2013 Mar; 40(3):177-80. PubMed ID: 23294254
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A Bayesian non-inferiority test for two independent binomial proportions.
    Kawasaki Y; Miyaoka E
    Pharm Stat; 2013; 12(4):201-6. PubMed ID: 23625633
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The McNemar test for binary matched-pairs data: mid-p and asymptotic are better than exact conditional.
    Fagerland MW; Lydersen S; Laake P
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2013 Jul; 13():91. PubMed ID: 23848987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Biostatistics Series Module 4: Comparing Groups - Categorical Variables.
    Hazra A; Gogtay N
    Indian J Dermatol; 2016; 61(4):385-92. PubMed ID: 27512183
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Choice of test for association in small sample unordered r x c tables.
    Lydersen S; Pradhan V; Senchaudhuri P; Laake P
    Stat Med; 2007 Oct; 26(23):4328-43. PubMed ID: 17311220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Finite sample pointwise confidence intervals for a survival distribution with right-censored data.
    Fay MP; Brittain EH
    Stat Med; 2016 Jul; 35(16):2726-40. PubMed ID: 26891706
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Formulae and tables for the determination of sample sizes and power in clinical trials for testing differences in proportions for the two-sample design: a review.
    Sahai H; Khurshid A
    Stat Med; 1996 Jan; 15(1):1-21. PubMed ID: 8614740
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.