↓ Skip to main content

Bonferroni-Holm and permutation tests to compare health data: methodological and applicative issues

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
Title
Bonferroni-Holm and permutation tests to compare health data: methodological and applicative issues
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12874-018-0540-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Massimiliano Giacalone, Zirilli Agata, Paolo Carmelo Cozzucoli, Angela Alibrandi

Abstract

Statistical methodology is a powerful tool in the health research; however, there is wide accord that statistical methodologies are not usually used properly. In particular when multiple comparisons are needed, it is necessary to check the rate of false positive results and the potential inflation of type I errors. In this case, permutation testing methods are useful to check the simultaneous significance level and identify the most significant factors. In this paper an application of permutation tests, in the medical context of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, is performed. The main goal is to assess the existence of significant differences between Crohn's Disease (CD) and Ulcerative Colitis (UC). The Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test (Bonferroni-Holm procedure) is used to find which of the partial tests are effectively significant and solve the problem of the multiplicity control. Applying Non-Parametric Combination (NPC) Test for partial and combined tests we conclude that Crohn's Disease patients and Ulcerative Colitis patients differ between them for most examined variables. UC patients compared with the CD patients, have a higher diagnosis age, not show smoking status, proportion of patients treated with immunosuppressants or with biological drugs is lower than the CD patients, even if the duration of such therapies is longer. CD patients have a higher rate of re-hospitalization. Diabetes is more present in the sub-population of UC patients. Analyzing the Charlson score we can highlight that UC patients have a more severe clinical situation than CD patients. Finally, CD patients are more frequently subject to surgery compared to UC. Appling of the Bonferroni Holm procedure, which provided adjusted p-values, we note that only nine of the examined variables are statistically significant: Smoking habit, Immunosuppressive therapy, Surgery, Biological Drug, Diabetes, Adverse Events, Re-hospitalization, Gender and Duration of Immunosoppressive Therapy. Therefore, we can conclude that these are the specific variables that can discriminate effectively the Crohn's Disease and Ulcerative Colitis groups. We identified significant variables that discriminate the two groups, satisfying the multiplicity problem, in fact we can affirm that Smoking habit, Immunosuppressive therapy, Surgery, Biological Drug, Diabetes, Adverse Events, Hospitalization, Gender and Duration of Immunosoppressive Therapy are the effectively significant variables.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 71 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 14%
Researcher 10 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Other 4 6%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 25 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Neuroscience 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 28 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 February 2021.
All research outputs
#4,047,338
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#646
of 2,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,655
of 328,924 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#24
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,035 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,924 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.