141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8883697)
1. A statistics primer. Hypothesis testing.
Kuhn JE; Greenfield ML; Wojtys EM
Am J Sports Med; 1996; 24(5):702-3. PubMed ID: 8883697
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Extremely small sample size in some toxicity studies: an example from the rabbit eye irritation test.
Liu PT
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2001 Apr; 33(2):187-91. PubMed ID: 11350201
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Not different is not the same as the same: how can we tell?
Drummond GB; Vowler SL
Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol; 2012 Dec; 39(12):991-4. PubMed ID: 23919813
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Not different is not the same as the same: how can we tell?
Drummond GB; Vowler SL
Adv Physiol Educ; 2012 Dec; 36(4):261-4. PubMed ID: 23209006
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Not different is not the same as the same: how can we tell?
Drummond GB; Vowler SL
Microcirculation; 2012 Nov; 19(8):771-4. PubMed ID: 23164036
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Not different is not the same as the same: how can we tell?
Drummond GB; Vowler SL
Exp Physiol; 2013 Feb; 98(2):351-4. PubMed ID: 23349528
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Primer on certain elements of medical decision making.
McNeil BJ; Keller E; Adelstein SJ
N Engl J Med; 1975 Jul; 293(5):211-5. PubMed ID: 806804
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Not different is not the same as the same: how can we tell?
Drummond GB; Vowler SL
Br J Pharmacol; 2013 Jan; 168(1):7-10. PubMed ID: 23252665
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Not different is not the same as the same: how can we tell?
Drummond GB; Vowler SL
J Physiol; 2012 Nov; 590(21):5257-60. PubMed ID: 23118061
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Should we accept a higher risk of type I errors in some trials?
Laigaard J
Br J Anaesth; 2020 Aug; 125(2):e226-e227. PubMed ID: 32591089
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. How often should we expect to be wrong? Statistical power, P values, and the expected prevalence of false discoveries.
Marino MJ
Biochem Pharmacol; 2018 May; 151():226-233. PubMed ID: 29248599
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. CORP: Minimizing the chances of false positives and false negatives.
Curran-Everett D
J Appl Physiol (1985); 2017 Jan; 122(1):91-95. PubMed ID: 27909232
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Some comments on false discovery rate.
Bar-Hen A; Kim KI; Van De Wiel MA
J Bioinform Comput Biol; 2007 Aug; 5(4):987-90. PubMed ID: 17787067
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Power and sample size: how many patients do I need?
Grunkemeier GL; Jin R
Ann Thorac Surg; 2007 Jun; 83(6):1934-9. PubMed ID: 17532374
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Effect of a misspecification of response rates on type I and type II errors, in a phase II Simon design.
Baey C; Le Deley MC
Eur J Cancer; 2011 Jul; 47(11):1647-52. PubMed ID: 21493059
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The Harm Done to Reproducibility by the Culture of Null Hypothesis Significance Testing.
Lash TL
Am J Epidemiol; 2017 Sep; 186(6):627-635. PubMed ID: 28938715
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Why P is not perfect.
Chopra V; Hayward RA
Am J Med; 2012 Jun; 125(6):e1-2. PubMed ID: 22483057
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. An evaluation of inferential procedures for adaptive clinical trial designs with pre-specified rules for modifying the sample size.
Levin GP; Emerson SC; Emerson SS
Biometrics; 2014 Sep; 70(3):556-67. PubMed ID: 24766094
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The science of doping.
Berry DA
Nature; 2008 Aug; 454(7205):692-3. PubMed ID: 18685682
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Analyzing bioassay data using Bayesian methods--a primer.
Miller G; Inkret WC; Schillaci ME; Martz HF; Little TT
Health Phys; 2000 Jun; 78(6):598-613. PubMed ID: 10832919
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
