Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38785625›Full record

ArticleEntropy (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Likelihood Ratio Test and the Evidential Approach for 2 × 2 Tables.

Peter M B Cahusac

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Entropy (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Peter M B CahusacDepartment of Pharmacology & Biostatistics, College of Medicine, Alfaisal University, Riyadh 11533, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0003-4976-2834

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Categorical data analysis of 2 × 2 contingency tables is extremely common, not least because they provide risk difference, risk ratio, odds ratio, and log odds statistics in medical research. A χ2 test analysis is most often used, although some researchers use likelihood ratio test (LRT) analysis. Does it matter which test is used? A review of the literature, examination of the theoretical foundations, and analyses of simulations and empirical data are used by this paper to argue that only the LRT should be used when we are interested in testing whether the binomial proportions are equal. This so-called test of independence is by far the most popular, meaning the χ2 test is widely misused. By contrast, the χ2 test should be reserved for where the data appear to match too closely a particular hypothesis (e.g., the null hypothesis), where the variance is of interest, and is less than expected. Low variance can be of interest in various scenarios, particularly in investigations of data integrity. Finally, it is argued that the evidential approach provides a consistent and coherent method that avoids the difficulties posed by significance testing. The approach facilitates the calculation of appropriate log likelihood ratios to suit our research aims, whether this is to test the proportions or to test the variance. The conclusions from this paper apply to larger contingency tables, including multi-way tables.

Indexed as

2 × 2 tablebinomialcontingency tablesdata integrityG-testlikelihoodlikelihood ratio testmulti-way tablesodds ratiotest for independencetest for variancetoo good to be trueχ2 test

Identifiers

PMID38785625
PMCPMC11119089

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.