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 *

304 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27512183)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 2 × 2 Tables: a note on Campbell's recommendation.
    Busing FM; Weaver B; Dubois S
    Stat Med; 2016 Apr; 35(8):1354-8. PubMed ID: 26576745
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The score test for independence in R x C contingency tables with missing data.
    Lipsitz SR; Fitzmaurice GM
    Biometrics; 1996 Jun; 52(2):751-62. PubMed ID: 8672711
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Testing differences in proportions.
    Fisher MJ; Marshall AP; Mitchell M
    Aust Crit Care; 2011 May; 24(2):133-8. PubMed ID: 21536451
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Statistics for clinicians. 2. Nominal data (I).
    Nanivadekar AS; Kannappan AR
    J Assoc Physicians India; 1990 Dec; 38(12):931-5, 974. PubMed ID: 2096131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. [Clinical research XVII. χ(2) test, from the expected to the observed].
    Rivas-Ruiz R; Castelán-Martínez OD; Pérez M; Talavera JO
    Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc; 2013; 51(5):552-7. PubMed ID: 24144149
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. An alternative test for trend in exposure-response analysis.
    Dosemeci M; Benichou J
    J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol; 1998; 8(1):9-15. PubMed ID: 9470101
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. [Characteristics of categorical data analysis].
    Zuvić-Butorac M
    Acta Med Croatica; 2006; 60 Suppl 1():63-79. PubMed ID: 16526308
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Symmetry in square contingency tables: tests of hypotheses and confidence interval construction.
    May WL; Johnson WD
    J Biopharm Stat; 2001; 11(1-2):23-33. PubMed ID: 11459440
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Adjustments to the Mantel-Haenszel chi-square statistic and odds ratio variance estimator when the data are clustered.
    Donald A; Donner A
    Stat Med; 1987 Jun; 6(4):491-9. PubMed ID: 3629050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Testing for conditional multiple marginal independence.
    Bilder CR; Loughin TM
    Biometrics; 2002 Mar; 58(1):200-8. PubMed ID: 11890315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Partitioning chi-square the analysis of contingency tables with repeated measurements.
    Halperin S; Nehrke MF; Hulicka IM; Morganti JB
    Exp Aging Res; 1976 Feb; 2(2):105-18. PubMed ID: 1017442
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 16.