This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Ronald S. Cormack, BM
Northwick Park Hospital & Clinical Research Centre Harrow, England

JAMA. 1989;262(22):3129.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—

I am sure we all applaud the careful study by McKinney et al¹ that reviewed published errors in the use of Fisher's Exact Test. However, their case does not go far enough. Physicians are criticized for lack of care in statistics and for not consulting experts when needed, but is the statistical establishment itself above reproach here?

McKinney et al do not mention that statisticians advocate more than one way of finding the total probability in Fisher's Exact Test; the discrepancies between these methods can be just as great as that between the one- and twotailed P values. Worse still, the commonly recommended ways of finding the second tail can, in certain cases, give impossible P values. I have enumerated these anomalies and also have offered a solution that avoids them.^2,3 Of course, statisticians do not have to accept my solution; if a better one . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?