 |
 |

Fisher's Inexact Test: Probability Too Serious to Be Left to Statisticians-Reply
W. Paul McKinney, MD;
Mark J. Young, MD;
Martha Bi-Fong Lee, PhD
Medical College of Wisconsin Milwaukee
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. |
|
 |
 |
In Reply. —
We thank Dr Cormack for his comments on our article. The issue of multiple techniques for performing Fisher's Exact Test is yet another reason for structured reviews of submitted articles to ensure that statistical methodology is described explicitly. It is important for both physicians and biostatisticians to maximize the quality of biomedical research. However, few nonstatisticians have the ability to contribute to statistical theory as Dr Cormack has done. Ultimately, only the journal editors and their designated reviewers can ensure that uniform statistical standards for manuscripts are developed and strictly enforced.
. . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]
CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter
What's this?
|