Practical statistics for medical research

By Douglas G. Altman. 1990

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

The Econometrics of Randomized Experiments (2016, background): “…variety of literatures, including the statistical literature on the analysis and design of experiments, e.g., Wu and Hamada (2009), Cox and Reid (2000), Altman (1991), Cook and DeMets (2008), Kempthorne (1952, 1955), Cochran and Cox (1957), Davies (1954), and Hinkelman and Kempthorne (2005, 2008).”
RCV1: A New Benchmark Collection for Text Categorization Research (2004, methodology): “To compute this score, we ﬁrst separately compute the c 2 statistic (Altman, 1991, Section 10.7) for the feature with respect to each category in the category set: where n is the total number of examples used in calculating the statistic, a is the number of examples with both the feature and the…”
Final Collapse of the Neyman-Pearson Decision Theoretic Framework and Rise of the neoFisherian (2009, background): “A few textbooks have adopted this viewpoint (e.g. Welkowitz et al. 1971, 1991, 2006, Fleiss 1981, 1986, Altman 1991, Schulman 1992, Bart et al. 1998), but the great majority have not.”
Randomized controlled trials. (2004, background): “Random allocation means that all participants have the same chance of being assigned to each of the study groups [27].”
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nares colonization at hospital admission and its effect on subsequent MRSA infection. (2004, methodology): “The precision of relative risks for MRSA infection was determined by the method for calculating 95% CIs described by Altman [29].”
A Mixed Methods Investigation of Mixed Methods Sampling Designs in Social and Health Science Research (2007, methodology): “The following criteria were used to interpret the Kappa coefficient: .20 = poor agreement, .21-.40 = fair agreement, .41-.60 = moderate agreement, .61-.80 = good agreement, .81-1.00 = very good agreement (Altman, 1991).”
Female physical attractiveness in Britain and Japan: a cross‐cultural study (2006, methodology): “Following Tovée et al. (1999), we chose the simplest approach possible, which was to include second- and third-order terms in a multiple regression model (see Altman, 1991), (a) Japanese group (b) British group Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur.”
Students’ Perceptions of Characteristics of Effective College Teachers: A Validity Study of a Teaching Evaluation Form Using a Mixed-Methods Analysis (2007, methodology): “…2009 http://aerj.aera.netDownloaded from Characteristics of Effective College Teachers 127 criteria were used to interpret the Kappa coefficient: .20 = poor agreement, .21-.40 = fair agreement, .41-.60 = moderate agreement, .61-.80 = good agreement, .81-1.00 = very good agreement (Altman, 1991).”
The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: A clarification of its content (2010, background): “The paired t-test was also considered to be inappropriate, because it is a measure of significant change instead of valid change, and it is dependent on the sample size of the study [18].”
Automatic construction of multiple-object three-dimensional statistical shape models: application to cardiac modeling (2002, methodology): “To interpret the values of the statistic, one can refer to standard tables provided in the literature [47].”