Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 211

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Weighted comparison of means: Table 1

Open access
Bland, J Martin, Kerry, Sally M·1998·BMJ

Abstract

In a recent Statistics Note1 we referred to a weighted two sample t test. Here we describe how it is done. The data were the percentage of requests from general practitioners for x ray examinations which were judged appropriate (table 1), where general practitioners had been randomised to intervention or control groups.2 View this table: Table 1 Number of requests conforming to guidelines for each practice in the intervention and control groups If we compare the two sets of percentages by the usual two sample t method, each observation (practice) has an equal impact on the result. As some practices contributed fewer requests than others, we wish these practices to have a lesser effect on the estimate of the difference. We can do this by weighting the practices by the …

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 · 10.1136/bmj.316.7125.129

Cites

1 of 1 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

Cited by

See all 211

Metadata

Authors
Bland, J. M., & Kerry, S. M.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1998-01-10
Volume
316
Issue
7125
Pages
129
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2077292419
Cited by
211
References
1
FWCI
3.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Weighted comparison of means: Table 1. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.316.7125.129
The paper
Bland, J. M., & Kerry, S. M. (1998). Weighted comparison of means: Table 1. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.316.7125.129

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.