1993
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.1993.368
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Current statistical issues in clinical cancer research

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

1
1
0

Year Published

1994
1994
2004
2004

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
1
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These differences were quantified using the j indices (observed agreements against chance-expected agreement by chance), which are 0.84 and 1.00 for TcP2b-MBP and TcP2b-TRX, respectively. These values corresponded to very good and total agreement, respectively [23]. Dispersion results for the different assays are shown in Fig.…”
Section: Diagnostic Performance Evaluationsupporting
confidence: 53%
“…These differences were quantified using the j indices (observed agreements against chance-expected agreement by chance), which are 0.84 and 1.00 for TcP2b-MBP and TcP2b-TRX, respectively. These values corresponded to very good and total agreement, respectively [23]. Dispersion results for the different assays are shown in Fig.…”
Section: Diagnostic Performance Evaluationsupporting
confidence: 53%
“…The U index indicates concordance between the ELISA test using LLGP-67 as antigen and the reference criterion that was used for characterization of sera. It is interesting to remark that U values between 0.91 and 1 are considered highly concordant [22].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%