Cited by 1,346Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Adjusting for multiple testing when reporting research results: the Bonferroni vs Holm methods.

Open access
Aickin, M, Gensler, H·1996·American Journal of Public Health

Abstract

Public health researchers are sometimes required to make adjustments for multiple testing in reporting their results, which reduces the apparent significance of effects and thus reduces statistical power. The Bonferroni procedure is the most widely recommended way of doing this, but another procedure, that of Holm, is uniformly better. Researchers may have neglected Holm's procedure because it has been framed in terms of hypothesis test rejection rather than in terms of P values. An adjustment to P values based on Holm's method is presented in order to promote the method's use in public health research.

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 · 10.2105/ajph.86.5.726

Cites

9 of 9 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 9 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. LaVeist TA, 1989, Social Soc Res., 73, 90
  2. Haenszel W, 1962, JNCI., 28, 1000
  3. Gates-Williams J, 1992, West JMed., 157, 350
  4. Centers for Disease Control, 1994, MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep., 43, 288
  5. Edwards CH, 1994, J Nutr., 124, 927S
  6. Holm S, 1979, Scand J Statistics., 6, 65

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 601–700 of 1,000

Metadata

Authors
Aickin, M., & Gensler, H.
Affiliations
University of Arizona (US)
Venue
American Journal of Public Health
Published
1996-05
Volume
86
Issue
5
Pages
726-728
ISSN
  • 0090-0036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1541-0048
OpenAlex
W2020720070
Cited by
1,346
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 87 · 2025: 84 · 2024: 85 · 2023: 69 · 2022: 85 · 2021: 94 · 2020: 76 · 2019: 75 · 2018: 62 · 2017: 71 · 2016: 58 · 2015: 56 · 2014: 56 · 2013: 42 · 2012: 37
FWCI
11.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Arizona Cancer Center
  • National Cancer Institute (CA-25702)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
multiple comparisons, Bonferroni correction, p-value adjustment, statistical significance, statistical power, hypothesis testing
MeSH terms
Animals, Biometry, Humans, Public Health, Research, Skin Neoplasms, Mice

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