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
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.
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
Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x · Cited by 109,482
An improved Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance
SIMES, R. J. (1986) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/73.3.751 · Cited by 2,396
Multiple Comparison Procedures
Hochberg, Y., & Tamhane, A. C. (1987) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/9780470316672 · Cited by 2,389
Glass, G. V., Peckham, P. D., & Sanders, J. R. (1972) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543042003237 · Cited by 1,826
Note on an Exact Treatment of Contingency, Goodness of Fit and Other Problems of Significance
Freeman, G. H., & Halton, J. H. (1951) · Biometrika · doi:10.2307/2332323 · Cited by 954
Cited by
Do multiple outcome measures require p-value adjustment?
Feise, R. J. (2002) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-2-8 · Cited by 1,299
Drysdale, C. M., McGraw, D. W., Stack, C. B., Stephens, J. C., Judson, R. S., Nandabalan, K., Arnold, K., Ruano, G., & Liggett, S. B. (2000) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.97.19.10483 · Cited by 964
Di Castelnuovo, A. (2006) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.166.22.2437 · Cited by 930
The impact of irritable bowel syndrome on health-related quality of life
Gralnek, I. M., Hays, R. D., Kilbourne, A., Naliboff, B., & Mayer, E. A. (2000) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/gast.2000.16484 · Cited by 781
The non-transcranial TMS-evoked potential is an inherent source of ambiguity in TMS-EEG studies
Conde, V., Tomasevic, L., Akopian, I., Stanek, K., Saturnino, G. B., Thielscher, A., Bergmann, T. O., & Siebner, H. R. (2019) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.10.052 · Cited by 343
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.