ArticlePloS one2018
A discussion on significance indices for contingency tables under small sample sizes.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perioperative changes of the linguistic functions in women after gynecological laparoscopic operations under propofol or sevoflurane-based anesthesia.Anaesthesiology intensive therapy · 2024Trial
- Is general anesthesia neuroinjury-free and safe for gynecological patients' cognition? A comparison of two typical anesthesia schemes based on propofol and sevoflurane.Anaesthesiology intensive therapy · 2025Article
- Comparing categorical variables in clinical and experimental studies.Jornal vascular brasileiro · 2022Article
- Are the 50's, the transition decade, in choroid plexus aging?GeroScience · 2021Article
- pathCHEMO, a generalizable computational framework uncovers molecular pathways of chemoresistance in lung adenocarcinoma.Communications biology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hypothesis testing in contingency tables is usually based on asymptotic results, thereby restricting its proper use to large samples. To study these tests in small samples, we consider the likelihood ratio test (LRT) and define an accurate index for the celebrated hypotheses of homogeneity, independence, and Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. The aim is to understand the use of the asymptotic results of the frequentist Likelihood Ratio Test and the Bayesian FBST (Full Bayesian Significance Test) under small-sample scenarios. The proposed exact LRT p-value is used as a benchmark to understand the other indices. We perform analysis in different scenarios, considering different sample sizes and different table dimensions. The conditional Fisher's exact test for 2 × 2 tables and the Barnard's exact test are also discussed. The main message of this paper is that all indices have very similar behavior, except for Fisher and Barnard tests that has a discrete behavior. The most powerful test was the asymptotic p-value from the likelihood ratio test, suggesting that is a good alternative for small sample sizes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.