ArticleBiometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift2025
Multiple Contrast Tests for Count Data: Small Sample Approximations and Their Limitations.
Article in Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Multiple Contrast Tests for Count Data: Small Sample Approximations and Their Limitations.Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Although count data are collected in many experiments, their analysis remains challenging, especially in small sample sizes. Until now, linear or generalized linear models in Poisson or Negative Binomial distributional families have often been used. However, these data frequently show signs of over-, underdispersion, or even zero-inflation, casting doubt on these distributional assumptions and leading to inaccurate test results. Since their distributions are usually skewed, data transformations (e.g., log-transformation) are not unusual. This underscores the need for statistical methods not to hinge on specific distributional assumptions. We delve into multiple contrast tests that allow general contrasts (e.g., many-to-one or all-pairs comparisons) to analyze count data in multi-arm trials. The methods vary in their effect and variance estimation, as well as in approximating the joint distribution of multiple test statistics, including frequently used methods such as linear and generalized linear models, and data transformations. An extensive simulation study demonstrates that a resampling version effectively controls the Type I error rate in various situations, while also highlighting the method's limitations, including overly liberal Type I error rates. Some standard methods, which have inflated Type I error rates, further underscore the need for alternative approaches. Real data applications further emphasize the applicability of these methods.
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.