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.
115 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2702812)
1. Extension of Fisher's exact test to 2-by-k contingency tables: a computer program in BASIC. Fung KP; Lee J Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 1989 Mar; 28(3):195-6. PubMed ID: 2702812 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. More enlightenment on the essence of applying Fisher's Exact test when testing for statistical significance using small sample data presented in a 2 x 2 table. Kangave D West Afr J Med; 1992; 11(3):179-84. PubMed ID: 1476961 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Exact Bayesian p-values for a test of independence in a 2 × 2 contingency table with missing data. Lin Y; Lipsitz SR; Sinha D; Fitzmaurice G; Lipshultz S Stat Methods Med Res; 2018 Nov; 27(11):3411-3419. PubMed ID: 28633606 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Stratified Fisher's exact test and its sample size calculation. Jung SH Biom J; 2014 Jan; 56(1):129-40. PubMed ID: 24395208 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Two-tailed significance tests for 2 × 2 contingency tables: What is the alternative? Prescott RJ Stat Med; 2019 Sep; 38(22):4264-4269. PubMed ID: 31264237 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Sensitivity of Fisher's exact test to minor perturbations in 2 x 2 contingency tables. Dupont WD Stat Med; 1986; 5(6):629-35. PubMed ID: 3823670 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A revisit to contingency table and tests of independence: bootstrap is preferred to Chi-square approximations as well as Fisher's exact test. Lin JJ; Chang CH; Pal N J Biopharm Stat; 2015; 25(3):438-58. PubMed ID: 24905809 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison of tests of contingency tables. Amiri S; Modarres R J Biopharm Stat; 2017; 27(5):784-796. PubMed ID: 27936354 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Yates's correction for continuity and the analysis of 2 x 2 contingency tables. Haviland MG Stat Med; 1990 Apr; 9(4):363-7; discussion 369-83. PubMed ID: 2362976 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. On analysis of epidemiological data involving a 2 x 2 contingency table: an overview of Fisher's exact test and Yates' correction for continuity. Sahai H; Khurshid A J Biopharm Stat; 1995 Mar; 5(1):43-70. PubMed ID: 7613560 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Recommended tests for association in 2 x 2 tables. Lydersen S; Fagerland MW; Laake P Stat Med; 2009 Mar; 28(7):1159-75. PubMed ID: 19170020 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Concerning the analysis of 2 x 2 tables. O'Brien KF Comput Biomed Res; 1994 Dec; 27(6):434-40. PubMed ID: 7895471 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Unconditional versions of several tests commonly used in the analysis of contingency tables. Freidlin B Biometrics; 1999 Mar; 55(1):264-7. PubMed ID: 11318165 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Analysis of two-category data from small independent samples. Lee J Aust N Z J Med; 1976 Apr; 6(2):141-6. PubMed ID: 1067813 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Categorical independence tests for large sparse r-way contingency tables. Mielke PW; Berry KJ Percept Mot Skills; 2002 Oct; 95(2):606-10. PubMed ID: 12434857 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Multiway contingency tables: Monte Carlo resampling probability values for the chi-squared and likelihood-ratio tests. Long MA; Berry KJ; Mielke PW Psychol Rep; 2010 Oct; 107(2):501-10. PubMed ID: 21117477 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]