Literature DB >> 15532090

Testing the equality of two Poisson means using the rate ratio.

Hon Keung Tony Ng1, Man-Lai Tang.   

Abstract

In this article, we investigate procedures for comparing two independent Poisson variates that are observed over unequal sampling frames (i.e. time intervals, populations, areas or any combination thereof). We consider two statistics (with and without the logarithmic transformation) for testing the equality of two Poisson rates. Two methods for implementing these statistics are reviewed. They are (1) the sample-based method, and (2) the constrained maximum likelihood estimation (CMLE) method. We conduct an empirical study to evaluate the performance of different statistics and methods. Generally, we find that the CMLE method works satisfactorily only for the statistic without the logarithmic transformation (denoted as W(2)) while sample-based method performs better for the statistic using the logarithmic transformation (denoted as W(3)). It is noteworthy that both statistics perform well for moderate to large Poisson rates (e.g. > or =10). For small Poisson rates (e.g. <10), W(2) can be liberal (e.g. actual type I error rate/nominal level > or =1.2) while W(3) can be conservative (e.g. actual type I error rate/nominal level < or =0.8). The corresponding sample size formulae are provided and valid in the sense that the simulated powers associated with the approximate sample size formulae are generally close to the pre-chosen power level. We illustrate our methodologies with a real example from a breast cancer study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15532090     DOI: 10.1002/sim.1949

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  8 in total

1.  Automated electronic reminders to facilitate primary cardiovascular disease prevention: randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Tim A Holt; Margaret Thorogood; Frances Griffiths; Stephen Munday; Tim Friede; David Stables
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 2.  A survey of the approaches for identifying differential methylation using bisulfite sequencing data.

Authors:  Adib Shafi; Cristina Mitrea; Tin Nguyen; Sorin Draghici
Journal:  Brief Bioinform       Date:  2018-09-28       Impact factor: 11.622

3.  Wounds in advanced illness: a prevalence and incidence study based on a prospective case series.

Authors:  Vincent Maida; Mario Corbo; Michael Dolzhykov; Marguerite Ennis; Shiraz Irani; Linda Trozzolo
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 3.315

4.  Sample size calculation for differential expression analysis of RNA-seq data under Poisson distribution.

Authors:  Chung-I Li; Pei-Fang Su; Yan Guo; Yu Shyr
Journal:  Int J Comput Biol Drug Des       Date:  2013-09-30

5.  Cardiovascular safety of exenatide BID: an integrated analysis from controlled clinical trials in participants with type 2 diabetes.

Authors:  Robert Ratner; Jenny Han; Dawn Nicewarner; Irina Yushmanova; Byron J Hoogwerf; Larry Shen
Journal:  Cardiovasc Diabetol       Date:  2011-03-16       Impact factor: 9.951

6.  Statistical methods on detecting differentially expressed genes for RNA-seq data.

Authors:  Zhongxue Chen; Jianzhong Liu; Hon Keung Tony Ng; Saralees Nadarajah; Howard L Kaufman; Jack Y Yang; Youping Deng
Journal:  BMC Syst Biol       Date:  2011-12-23

7.  Magnitude and complexity of rectal mucosa HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cell responses during chronic infection reflect clinical status.

Authors:  J William Critchfield; Delandy H Young; Timothy L Hayes; Jerome V Braun; Juan C Garcia; Richard B Pollard; Barbara L Shacklett
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2008-10-30       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Automated Risk Assessment for Stroke in Atrial Fibrillation (AURAS-AF)--an automated software system to promote anticoagulation and reduce stroke risk: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Tim A Holt; David A Fitzmaurice; Tom Marshall; Matthew Fay; Nadeem Qureshi; Andrew R H Dalton; F D Richard Hobbs; Daniel S Lasserson; Karen Kearley; Jenny Hislop; Jing Jin
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2013-11-13       Impact factor: 2.279

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.