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 *

112 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19125396)

  • 1. Comments on 'Tests for the homogeneity of two binomial proportions in extremely unbalanced 2x2 contingency tables', by S.-H. Kang and C. W. Ahn, Statistics in Medicine 2008; 27:2524-2535.
    Martín Andrés A; Herranz Tejedor I
    Stat Med; 2009 Feb; 28(3):528-31. PubMed ID: 19125396
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Comments on 'How conservative is Fisher's exact test? A quantitative evaluation of the two-sample comparative binomial trial' by G. G. Crans and J. J. Shuster, Statistics in Medicine 2008; 27:3598-3611.
    Martín Andrés A; Herranz Tejedor I
    Stat Med; 2009 Jan; 28(1):173-4. PubMed ID: 18825654
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Statistical inference on categorical variables.
    Perkins SM
    Methods Mol Biol; 2007; 404():73-88. PubMed ID: 18450046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comments on 'Confidence intervals for a ratio of binomial proportions based on paired data' by D. G. Bonett and R. M. Price, Statistics in Medicine 2006; 25:3039-3047.
    Newcombe RG
    Stat Med; 2007 Nov; 26(25):4684-5. PubMed ID: 17721871
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Rasch models overview.
    Wright BD; Mok M
    J Appl Meas; 2000; 1(1):83-106. PubMed ID: 12023559
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Misspecification tests for binomial and beta-binomial models.
    Capanu M; Presnell B
    Stat Med; 2008 Jun; 27(14):2536-54. PubMed ID: 17914713
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Quantitative binomial distribution analyses of nanoscale like-solute atom clustering and segregation in atom probe tomography data.
    Moody MP; Stephenson LT; Ceguerra AV; Ringer SP
    Microsc Res Tech; 2008 Jul; 71(7):542-50. PubMed ID: 18425800
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comments on 'non-inferiority tests for clustered matched-pair data' by J. Nam and D. Kwon, Statistics in Medicine 2009; 28:1668-1679.
    Yang Z; Sun X
    Stat Med; 2010 Jul; 29(17):1857-8; author reply 1859-60. PubMed ID: 20658552
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [Statistical analysis of 2 proportions with paired data: the McNemar test].
    Cayuela Domínguez A; Rodríguez Domínguez S
    Aten Primaria; 1997 Dec; 20(10):571-3. PubMed ID: 9494220
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Statistical inference for proportions.
    Joseph L; Reinhold C
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2005 Apr; 184(4):1057-64. PubMed ID: 15788573
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. [How I explore the various statistical facets of 2 x 2 tables in medicine].
    Albert A
    Rev Med Liege; 2013 Sep; 68(9):470-8. PubMed ID: 24180203
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The equivalence of the generalized McNemar tests for marginal homogeneity in 2(3) and 3(2) tables.
    Mantel N; Fleiss JL
    Biometrics; 1975 Sep; 31(3):727-9. PubMed ID: 1174626
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The essential role of balance tests in propensity-matched observational studies: comments on 'A critical appraisal of propensity-score matching in the medical literature between 1996 and 2003' by Peter Austin, Statistics in Medicine.
    Hansen BB
    Stat Med; 2008 May; 27(12):2050-4; discussion 2066-9. PubMed ID: 18407561
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Tests of marginal homogeneity and special cases.
    Dunnigan K
    Pharm Stat; 2013; 12(4):213-6. PubMed ID: 23776034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Yates's correction for continuity and the analysis of 2 x 2 contingency tables.
    Peritz E
    Stat Med; 1992 Apr; 11(6):845-7. PubMed ID: 1510780
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A method for comparing two normal means using combined samples of correlated and uncorrelated data by S. W. Looney and P. W. Jones, Statistics in Medicine 2003; 22:1601-1610.
    Mehrotra DV
    Stat Med; 2004 Apr; 23(7):1179-80. PubMed ID: 15057885
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comments on 'Chi-squared and Fisher-Irwin tests of two-by-two tables with small sample recommendations'.
    Martín Andrés A
    Stat Med; 2008 May; 27(10):1791-5; author reply 1795-6. PubMed ID: 18069725
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.