2016International Journal of Clinical Research & TrialsOpen access

A Note on Exact Tests and Confidence Intervals for Two-by-Two Contingency Tables in Randomized Trials

Yasutaka Chiba

Open full text 1 citations

Abstract

There are two major exact tests used for hypothesis testing of two-by-two contingency tables: Fisher’s exact test and Barnard’s exact test. Recently, Chiba (Journal of Biometrics and Biostatistics 2015; 2: 244) developed new exact tests: a conditional exact test, which requires that a marginal total is fixed, and an unconditional exact test, which does not require that a marginal total is fixed and depends rather on the ratio of random assignment. Fisher’s exact test can be regarded as a special case of the conditional exact test. For Barnard’s and Chiba’s exact tests, the confidence intervals linking to them can be constructed in a straightforward manner. In this article, we review these three exact tests, noting the differences in the null hypotheses that they test. Furthermore, using a numerical example, we demonstrate that the confidence interval linking to Barnard’s exact test is not in fact an exact confidence interval for the causal effect.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

There are two major exact tests used for hypothesis testing of two-by-two contingency tables: Fisher’s exact test and Barnard’s exact test. Recently, Chiba (Journal of Biometrics and Biostatistics 2015; 2: 244) developed new exact tests: a conditional exact test, which requires that a marginal total is fixed, and an unconditional exact test, which does not require that a marginal total is fixed and depends rather on the ratio of random assignment. Fisher’s exact test can be regarded as a special case of the conditional exact test. For Barnard’s and Chiba’s exact tests, the confidence intervals linking to them can be constructed in a straightforward manner. In this article, we review these three exact tests, noting the differences in the null hypotheses that they test. Furthermore, using a numerical example, we demonstrate that the confidence interval linking to Barnard’s exact test is not in fact an exact confidence interval for the causal effect.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

There are two major exact tests used for hypothesis testing of two-by-two contingency tables: Fisher’s exact test and Barnard’s exact test. Recently, Chiba (Journal of Biometrics and Biostatistics 2015; 2: 244) developed new exact tests: a conditional exact test, which requires that a marginal total is fixed, and an unconditional exact test, which does not require that a marginal total is fixed and depends rather on the ratio of random assignment. Fisher’s exact test can be regarded as a special case of the conditional exact test. For Barnard’s and Chiba’s exact tests, the confidence intervals linking to them can be constructed in a straightforward manner. In this article, we review these three exact tests, noting the differences in the null hypotheses that they test. Furthermore, using a numerical example, we demonstrate that the confidence interval linking to Barnard’s exact test is not in fact an exact confidence interval for the causal effect.

Key concepts: Exact statistics, Exact test, Confidence interval, Contingency table, Mathematics, Statistics, Statistical hypothesis testing, Test (biology)

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
A Note on Exact Tests and Confidence Intervals for Two-by-Two Contingency Tables in Randomized Trials — Research Paper | ScholarLens