Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 618

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

MULTIPLE COMPARISON PROCEDURES UPDATED

Ludbrook, John·1998·Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology and Physiology

Abstract

SUMMARY: 1. A common statistical flaw in articles submitted to or published in biomedical research journals is to test multiple null hypotheses that originate from the results of a single experiment without correcting for the inflated risk of type 1 error (false positive statistical inference) that results from this. Multiple comparison procedures (MCP) are designed to minimize this risk. The present review focuses on pairwise contrasts, the most common sort of multiple comparisons made by biomedical investigators. 2. In an earlier review a variety of MCP were described and evaluated. It was concluded that an effective MCP should control the risk of family‐wise type 1 error, so as to ensure that not more than one hypothesis within a single family is falsely rejected. One‐step procedures based on the Bonferroni or Sidak inequalities do this. For continuous data and under normal distribution theory, so does the Tukey‐Kramer procedure for all possible pairwise contrasts of means and the Dunnett procedure for all possible pairwise contrasts of means with a control mean. 3. There is now a new class of MCP, based on the Bonferroni or Šidák inequalities but performed in a step‐wise fashion. The members of this class have certain desirable properties. They: (i) control the family‐wise type 1 error rate as effectively as the one‐step procedures; (ii) are more powerful than the one‐step Bonferroni or Sidak procedures, especially when hypotheses are logically related; and (iii) can be applied not only to continuous data but also to ordinal or categorical data. 4. Of the new step‐wise MCP, Holm's step‐down procedures are commended for their combination of accuracy, power and versatility. They also have the virtue of simplicity. Given the raw P values that result from conventional tests of significance, the adjustments for multiple comparisons can be made by hand or hand‐held calculator. 5. Despite the corrective abilities of the new step‐wise MCP, investigators should try to design their experiments and analyses to test a single, global hypothesis rather than multiple ones.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1440-1681.1998.tb02179.x

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 618

Metadata

Authors
Ludbrook, J.
Venue
Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology and Physiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1998-12
Volume
25
Issue
12
Pages
1032-1037
ISSN
  • 0305-1870 (ISSN-L)
  • 1440-1681
OpenAlex
W2101960548
Cited by
618
References
5
FWCI
13.14
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: MULTIPLE COMPARISON PROCEDURES UPDATED. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1440-1681.1998.tb02179.x
The paper
Ludbrook, J. (1998). MULTIPLE COMPARISON PROCEDURES UPDATED. Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology and Physiology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1681.1998.tb02179.x

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.