Significance levels of randomization trend tests in the event of rare occurrences

Biometrical Journal

Volumn 39, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 327-337

  Chen, James J ^a,b   Kodell, Ralph L ^a,b   Pearce, Bruce A ^a,b  

^a CENTER FOR DRUG EVALUATION AND RESEARCH   (United States)

^b NATIONAL CENTER FOR TOXICOLOGICAL RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

Animal carcinogenicity; Cochran armitage; Fisher's exact test; Mantel Haenszel; Small frequency

Indexed keywords

RANDOM PROCESSES; TUMORS;

ANIMAL CARCINOGENICITY; COCHRAN-ARMITAGE; FISHER EXACT TEST; INCIDENCE RATE; LEVEL OF RANDOMIZATION; MANTEL-HAENSZEL; SIGNIFICANCE LEVELS; SMALL FREQUENCY; TREND TESTS;

ANIMALS;

EID: 0031507439     PISSN: 03233847     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bimj.4710390307     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. ALI, M. W., 1990: Exact versus asymptotic tests of trend of tumor prevalence in tumorigenicity experiments: a comparison of p-values for small frequency of tumors. Drug Information Journal 24, 727-737.
2. ARMITAGE, P., 1955: Tests for linear trends in proportions and frequencies. Biometrics 11, 375-386.
3. BARNARD, G., 1989: On the alleged gains in power from lower p-values. Statistics in Medicine 8, 1469-1477.
4. CIMINERA, J. L., 1985: Some Issues in the Design, Evaluation, and Interpretation of Tumorigenicity Studies in Animals. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Long-Term Animal Carcinogenicity Studies: A Statistical Perspective. American Statistical Association, 26-35.
5. CIMINERA, J. L., HEYSE, J. F., OPPENHEIMER, L., and TUKEY, J. W., 1987: Randomization Methods for Tumor Sites with Few Tumor-Bearing Rodents. Merck Sharp and Dohme Research Laboratories. West Point, PA 19486.
6. 2 tests. Biometrics 10, 417-451.
7. FISHER, R. A., 1956: The Design of Experiments (6th edition). Hafner, New York.
8. HIRJ, K. H., TAN, S.-J., and ELASHOFF, R. M., 1991: A quasi-exact test for comparing two binomial proportions. Statistics in Medicine 10, 1137-1153.
9. LANCASTER, H. O., 1961: Significance tests in discrete distributions. Journal of the American Statistical Association 56, 223-234.
10. MANTEL, N., 1963: Chi-square tests with one degree of freedom; Extensions of the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. Journal of the American Statistical Association 58, 690-700.
11. MANTEL, N. and HAENSZEL, W., 1959: Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 22, 719-748.
12. MANTEL, N., TUKEY, J. W., CIMINERA, J. L., HEYSE, J. F., 1982: Tumorigenicity assays, including use of the jackknife. Biometrical Journal 24, 579-596.
13. MIETTINEN, O. S., 1974: Discussion of Conover's "Some reasons for not using the Yates continuity correction on 2 × 2 contingency tables". Journal of the American Statistical Association 69, 374-382.
14. NATIONAL TOXICOLOGY PROGRAM, 1987: Toxicoloy and carcinogenesis studies of phenylephrine hydrochloride (CAS NO. 61-76-7) in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 Mice. NTP TR 322, Research Triangle Park, NC.
15. PORTIER, C., HEDGES, J., and HOEL, D. G., 1986: Age-specific models of mortality and tumor onset for historical control animals in the National Toxicology Program's carcinogenicity experiments. Cancer Research 46, 4372-4378.
16. SOPER, K. A. and TONKONOH, N., 1993: The discrete distribution used for the log-rank test can be inaccurate. Biometrical Journal 35, 291-298.
17. UPTON, G. J. G. (1982): A comparison of alternative tests for the 2 × 2 comparative trial. Journal of Royal Statistical Society A 145, 86-105.