The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Recommended tests for association in 2×2 tables
Abstract
The asymptotic Pearson's chi‐squared test and Fisher's exact test have long been the most used for testing association in 2×2 tables. Unconditional tests preserve the significance level and generally are more powerful than Fisher's exact test for moderate to small samples, but previously were disadvantaged by being computationally demanding. This disadvantage is now moot, as software to facilitate unconditional tests has been available for years. Moreover, Fisher's exact test with mid‐p adjustment gives about the same results as an unconditional test. Consequently, several better tests are available, and the choice of a test should depend only on its merits for the application involved. Unconditional tests and the mid‐p approach ought to be used more than they now are. The traditional Fisher's exact test should practically never be used. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Practical Statistics for Medical Research
Altman, D. G. (1990) · doi:10.1201/9780429258589 · Cited by 10,668
Agresti, A. (2002) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471249688 · Cited by 6,746
Fisher, R. A. (1936) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.1.3923.554-a · Cited by 4,980
Some Methods for Strengthening the Common χ 2 Tests
Cochran, W. G. (1954) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/3001616 · Cited by 3,718
Lydersen, S., Pradhan, V., Senchaudhuri, P., & Laake, P. (2005) · Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation · doi:10.1080/00949650410001729454 · Cited by 5
Self-citation
Cited by
Second-generation PLINK: rising to the challenge of larger and richer datasets
Chang, C. C., Chow, C. C., Tellier, L. C., Vattikuti, S., Purcell, S. M., & Lee, J. J. (2015) · Gigascience · doi:10.1186/s13742-015-0047-8 · Cited by 12,709
Fagerland, M. W., Lydersen, S., & Laake, P. (2013) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-13-91 · Cited by 403
Self-citationSoft skills and their importance in the labour market under the conditions of Industry 5.0
Poláková, M., Suleimanová, J. H., Madzík, P., Copuš, L., Molnárová, I., & Polednová, J. (2023) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e18670 · Cited by 346
Søvik, T. T., Aasheim, E. T., Taha, O., Engström, M., Fagerland, M. W., Björkman, S., Kristinsson, J., Birkeland, K. I., Mala, T., & Olbers, T. (2011) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-5-201109060-00005 · Cited by 166
Self-citationHemilä, H., & Suonsyrjä, T. (2017) · BMC Cardiovascular Disorders · doi:10.1186/s12872-017-0478-5 · Cited by 94
Waltl, I., Käufer, C., Bröer, S., Chhatbar, C., Ghita, L., Gerhauser, I., Anjum, M., Kalinke, U., & Löscher, W. (2018) · Neurobiology of Disease · doi:10.1016/j.nbd.2017.12.001 · Cited by 61
Metadata
- Authors
- Lydersen, S., Fagerland, M. W., & Laake, P.
- Venue
- Statistics in Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-03-02
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1159-1175
- ISSN
- 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0258
- OpenAlex
- W2118402681
- Cited by
- 308
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 14.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
