% Encoding: UTF-8

@article{Agresti1998,
  author = {Agresti, Alan and Coull, Brent A.},
  title = {Approximate is Better than "Exact" for Interval Estimation of Binomial Proportions},
  journal = {The American Statistician},
  volume = {52},
  number = {2},
  pages = {119--126},
  year = {1998},
  doi = {10.1080/00031305.1998.10480550}
}

@ARTICLE{Yan2010-jt,
  title     = "Stratified Wilson and Newcombe Confidence Intervals for Multiple
               Binomial Proportions",
  author    = "Yan, Xin and Su, Xiao Gang",
  abstract  = "This article proposes the stratified Wilson confidence interval
               for multiple binomial proportions and the stratified Newcombe
               confidence intervals for multiple binomial proportion
               differences. Both confidence intervals are presented in closed
               forms to facilitate easy calculations. The confidence levels of
               the proposed intervals are theoretically justified and
               demonstrated through extensive simulations. The coverage rates
               are found to be rather satisfactory. When the Wilson and
               Newcombe methods are used in unstratified analysis, the proposed
               methods may serve as the counterparts for stratified analysis.
               The proposed methods are applied to a vaccine trial to compute
               the stratified sero-conversion rate and rate difference over
               multiple clinical centers.",
  journal   = "Stat. Biopharm. Res.",
  publisher = "Taylor \& Francis",
  volume    =  2,
  number    =  3,
  pages     = "329--335",
  month     =  aug,
  year      =  2010
}


% The entry below contains non-ASCII chars that could not be converted
% to a LaTeX equivalent.
@ARTICLE{Schouten1980-kd,
  title     = "Comparing two independent binomial proportions by a modified chi
               square test",
  author    = "Schouten, H J A and Molenaar, I W and Van Strik, R and Boomsma,
               A",
  abstract  = "When using the chi square test to compare the proportions of
               successes in two independent binomial samples, a new continuity
               correction is proposed, which equals half the size of the
               smaller sample. Exact computations of unconditional
               tail-probabilities, together with a theoretical argument, show
               that this correction is more appropriate than the YATES
               correction. This version of the chi square test is still
               conservative, but less so, and as a consequence more powerful,
               than the YATES corrected test.",
  journal   = "Biom. J.",
  publisher = "Wiley",
  volume    =  22,
  number    =  3,
  pages     = "241--248",
  year      =  1980,
  language  = "en"
}

@ARTICLE{bland1986statistical,
  title     = "Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement",
  author    = "Bland, J Martin and Altman, DouglasG",
  abstract  = "In clinical measurement comparison of a new measurement technique
              with an established one is often needed to see whether they agree
              sufficiently for the new to replace the old. Such investigations
              are often analysed inappropriately, notably by using correlation
              coefficients. The use of correlation is misleading. An alternative
              approach, based on graphical techniques and simple calculations,
              is described, together with the relation between this analysis and
              the assessment of repeatability.",
  journal   = "The lancet",
  publisher = "Elsevier",
  volume    ="327",
  number    ="8476",
  pages     ="307--310",
  year      ="1986",
  language  = "en"
}

@article{HauckAnderson1986,
  author = {Walter W. Hauck and Sharon Anderson},
  journal = {The American Statistician},
  number = {4},
  pages = {318--322},
  title = {A Comparison of Large-Sample Confidence Interval Methods for the Difference of Two Binomial Probabilities},
  volume = {40},
  year = {1986},
  doi = {10.2307/2684618}
}

@article{Newcombe1998,
  author = {Newcombe, Robert G.},
  title = {Interval estimation for the difference between independent proportions: comparison of eleven methods},
  journal = {Statistics in Medicine},
  volume = {17},
  number = {8},
  pages = {873-890},
  doi = {10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19980430)17:8<873::AID-SIM779>3.0.CO;2-I},
  year = {1998}
}

@article{MantelHaenszel1959,
  title = {Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease},
  author = {Mantel, N. and Haenszel, W.},
  journal = {Journal of the National Cancer Institute},
  volume = {22},
  number = {4},
  pages = {719--748},
  year = {1959}
}

@article{Sato1989,
  title = {On the variance estimator for the Mantel-Haenszel Risk Difference},
  author = {Sato, Tosiya and Greenland, Sander and Robins, James M.},
  journal = {Biometrics},
  volume = {45},
  number = {4},
  pages = {1323--1324},
  year = {1989},
  url = {http://www.jstor.org/stable/2531784}
}

@article{MiettinenNurminen1985,
  title = {Comparative analysis of two rates},
  author = {Miettinen, Olli S. and Nurminen, Matti},
  journal = {Statistics in Medicine},
  volume = {4},
  number = {2},
  pages = {213--226},
  year = {1985},
  doi = {10.1002/sim.4780040211}
}

@article{SantnerSnell1980,
  author = {Santner, Thomas J. and Snell, Mark K.},
  title = {Small-Sample Confidence Intervals for p1 - p2 and p1/p2 in 2 x 2 Contingency Tables},
  journal = {Journal of the American Statistical Association},
  volume = {75},
  number = {370},
  pages = {386--394},
  year = {1980},
  publisher = {Taylor \& Francis},
  doi = {10.1080/01621459.1980.10477482}
}

