The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A general introduction to adjustment for multiple comparisons
Open accessAbstract
In experimental research a scientific conclusion is always drawn from the statistical testing of hypothesis, in which an acceptable cutoff of probability, such as 0.05 or 0.01, is used for decision-making. However, the probability of committing false statistical inferences would considerably increase when more than one hypothesis is simultaneously tested (namely the multiple comparisons), which therefore requires proper adjustment. Although the adjustment for multiple comparisons is proposed to be mandatory in some journals, it still remains difficult to select a proper method suitable for the various experimental properties and study purposes, especially for researchers without good background in statistics. In the present paper, we provide a brief review on mathematical framework, general concepts and common methods of adjustment for multiple comparisons, which is expected to facilitate the understanding and selection of adjustment methods.
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
The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency
Benjamini, Y., & Yekutieli, D. (2001) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/aos/1013699998 · Cited by 10,490
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
Cited by
What is the proper way to apply the multiple comparison test?
Lee, S., & Lee, D. K. (2018) · Korean Journal of Anesthesiology · doi:10.4097/kja.d.18.00242 · Cited by 1,052
Nanda, A., Mohapatra, D. B. B., Mahapatra, A. P. K., Mahapatra, A. P. K., & Mahapatra, A. P. K. (2021) · International Journal of Statistics and Applied Mathematics · doi:10.22271/maths.2021.v6.i1a.636 · Cited by 281
Zhang, Y., Lobo-Mueller, E. M., Karanicolas, P., Gallinger, S., Haider, M. A., & Khalvati, F. (2021) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-80998-y · Cited by 62
Political engagement and wellbeing among college students
Ballard, P. J., Ni, X., & Brocato, N. (2020) · Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2020.101209 · Cited by 61
Voos, N., Smith, D., Kaiser, L., Mahoney, M. C., Bradizza, C. M., Kozlowski, L. T., Benowitz, N. L., O’Connor, R. J., & Goniewicz, M. L. (2020) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-019-05386-x · Cited by 51
Metadata
- Authors
- Chen, S.-Y., Feng, Z., & Yi, X.
- Venue
- Journal of Thoracic Disease
- Publisher
- AME Publishing Company
- Published
- 2017-06
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1725-1729
- ISSN
- 2072-1439 (ISSN-L)
- 2077-6624
- OpenAlex
- W2619299539
- Cited by
- 753
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 23.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
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: A general introduction to adjustment for multiple comparisons. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.21037/jtd.2017.05.34
- The paper
- Chen, S.-Y., Feng, Z., & Yi, X. (2017). A general introduction to adjustment for multiple comparisons. Journal of Thoracic Disease. https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2017.05.34
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.