The McNemar test for binary matched-pairs data: mid-p and asymptotic are better than exact conditional

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Petter Laake²  Stian Lydersen¹  Morten W Fagerland³ 

[1] Regional Centre for Child and Youth Mental Health and Child Welfare-Central Norway, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway;Department of Biostatistics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway;Unit of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway

关键词: Quasi-exact;    Paired proportions;    Dependent proportions;    Matched pairs;   

Others  :  1092295
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2288-13-91

 received in 2013-03-12, accepted in 2013-07-09,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Statistical methods that use the mid-p approach are useful tools to analyze categorical data, particularly for small and moderate sample sizes. Mid-p tests strike a balance between overly conservative exact methods and asymptotic methods that frequently violate the nominal level. Here, we examine a mid-p version of the McNemar exact conditional test for the analysis of paired binomial proportions.

Methods

We compare the type I error rates and power of the mid-p test with those of the asymptotic McNemar test (with and without continuity correction), the McNemar exact conditional test, and an exact unconditional test using complete enumeration. We show how the mid-p test can be calculated using eight standard software packages, including Excel.

Results

The mid-p test performs well compared with the asymptotic, asymptotic with continuity correction, and exact conditional tests, and almost as good as the vastly more complex exact unconditional test. Even though the mid-p test does not guarantee preservation of the significance level, it did not violate the nominal level in any of the 9595 scenarios considered in this article. It was almost as powerful as the asymptotic test. The exact conditional test and the asymptotic test with continuity correction did not perform well for any of the considered scenarios.

Conclusions

The easy-to-calculate mid-p test is an excellent alternative to the complex exact unconditional test. Both can be recommended for use in any situation. We also recommend the asymptotic test if small but frequent violations of the nominal level is acceptable.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Fagerland et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Bentur L, Lapidot M, Livnat G, Hakim F, Lidroneta-Katz C, Porat I, Vilozni D, Elhasid R: Airway reactivity in children before and after stem cell transplantation. Pediatr Pulm 2009, 44:845-850.
• [2]Cavo M, Pantani L, Petrucci MT, Patriarca F, Zamagni E, Donnarumma D, Crippa C, Boccadoro M, Perrone G, Falcone A, Nozzoli C, Zambello R, Masini L, Furlan A, Brioli A, Derudas D, Ballanti S, Dessanti ML, De Stefano V, Carella AM, Marcatti M, Nozza A, Ferrara F, Callea V, Califano C, Pezzi A, Baraldi A, Grasso M, Musto P, Palumno A: Bortezomib-Thalidomide- Dexamethasone is superior to Thalidomide-Dexamethasone as consolidation therapy after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Blood 2012, 120:9-19.
• [3]Agresti A: Dealing with discreteness: making ‘exact’ confidence intervals for proportions, differences of proportions, and odds ratios more exact. Stat Methods Med Res 2003, 12:3-21.
• [4]Lancaster HO: Significance tests in discrete distributions. J Am Stat Assoc 1961, 56:223-234.
• [5]Lydersen S, Fagerland MW, Laake P: Recommended tests for association in 2×2 tables. Stat Med 2009, 28:1159-1175.
• [6]Agresti A: Categorical Data Analysis (3rd edn). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley,; 2013.
• [7]McNemar Q: Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentages. Psychometrika 1947, 12:153-157.
• [8]Edwards AL: Note on the “correction for continuity” in testing the significance of the difference between correlated proportions. Psychometrika 1948, 13(3):185-187.
• [9]Altman DG: Practical Statistics for Medical Research. Boca Raton Fl: Chapman & Hall/CRC,; 1991.
• [10]Fleiss JL, Levin B, Paik MC: Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions (3rd edn). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley,; 2003.
• [11]Mehta CR, Walsh SJ: Comparison of exact, mid-p, and Mantel-Haenszel confidence intervals for the common odds ratio across several 2×2 contingency tables. Am Stat 1992, 46:146-150.
• [12]Lydersen S, Laake P: Power comparison of two-sided exact tests for association in 2×2 contingency tables using standard, mid-P, and randomized test versions. Stat Med 2003, 22:3859-3871.
• [13]Hirji KF: Exact Analysis of Discrete Data. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC,; 2006.
• [14]Hirji KF, Tan S-J, Elashoff RM: A quasi-exact test for comparing two binomial proportions. Stat Med 1991, 10:1137—1153.
• [15]Suissa S, Shuster JJ: The 2×2 matched-pairs trial: exact unconditional design and analysis. Biometrics 1991, 47:361-372.
• [16]Fagerland MW: Exact and mid-P confidence intervals for the odds ratio. Stata J 2012, 12:505-514.
• [17]Haviland MG: Yates’s correction for continuity and the analysis of 2×2 contingency tables. Stat Med 1990, 9:363-367.
• [18]Lloyd CJ: A new exact and more powerful unconditional test of no treatment effect from binary matched pairs. Biometrics 2008, 64:716-723.