pairwiseCImethodsProp {pairwiseCI} | R Documentation |
For the comparison of two independent samples of binomial observations, confidence intervals for the difference (RD), ratio (RR) and odds ratio (OR) of proportions are implemented.
Prop.diff(x, y, conf.level=0.95, alternative="two.sided", CImethod=c("NHS", "CC", "AC"), ...) Prop.ratio(x, y, conf.level=0.95, alternative="two.sided", CImethod=c("Score", "GNC")) Prop.or(x, y, conf.level=0.95, alternative="two.sided", CImethod=c("Exact", "Woolf"), ...)
x |
observations of the first sample: either a vector with number of success and failure, or a data.frame with two columns (the success and failures)) |
y |
observations of the second sample: either a vector with number of success and failure, or a data.frame with two columns (the success and failures)) |
alternative |
character string, either "two.sided", "less" or "greater" |
conf.level |
the comparisonwise confidence level of the intervals, where 0.95 is default |
CImethod |
a single character string, see below for details |
... |
further arguments to be passed to the individual methods, see details |
Generally, the input are two vectors x and y giving the number of successes and failures in the two samples, or, alternatively, two data.frames x and y each containing one column for the successes and one column for the failures, and the rows containing repeated observations from the same treatment. Please note, that except for function prop.or with CImethod="Quasibinomial" the confidence intervals available in this function are based on sums over the rows of x and y and hence do NOT APPROPRIATELY account for extra-binomial variability between repeated observations for the same treatment!
A list containing:
conf.int |
a vector containing the lower and upper confidence limit |
estimate |
a single named value |
Dann, RS and Koch, GG (2005): Review and evaluation of methods for computing confidence intervals for the ratio of two proportions and considerations for non-inferiority clinical trials. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 15, 85-107.
# The rooting data. data(rooting) # the first comparison should be the same as: Age5_PosB_IBA0 <- subset(rooting, Age=="5" & Position=="B" & IBA=="0")[,c("root", "noroot")] Age5_PosB_IBA0.5 <- subset(rooting, Age=="5" & Position=="B" & IBA=="0.5")[,c("root", "noroot")] Age5_PosB_IBA0 Age5_PosB_IBA0.5 Prop.diff(x=Age5_PosB_IBA0, y=Age5_PosB_IBA0.5) Prop.ratio(x=Age5_PosB_IBA0, y=Age5_PosB_IBA0.5) Prop.or(x=Age5_PosB_IBA0, y=Age5_PosB_IBA0.5) # is the same as input two vectors x,y each containing # the count of successes and the count of failures colSums(Age5_PosB_IBA0) colSums(Age5_PosB_IBA0.5) Prop.diff(x=c(16,32),y=c(29,19)) Prop.ratio(x=c(16,32),y=c(29,19)) Prop.or(x=c(16,32),y=c(29,19)) # # # # Comparison with original papers: # Risk difference: # Risk difference, CC # Continuity corrected interval: # 1.Comparison with results presented in Newcombe (1998), # Table II, page 877, 10. Score, CC # column 1 (a): 56/70-48/80: [0.0441; 0.3559] Prop.diff(x=c(56,70-56),y=c(48,80-48), alternative="two.sided", conf.level=0.95, CImethod="CC") # I. Risk difference, NHS # Newcombes Hybrid Score interval: # 1.Comparison with results presented in Newcombe (1998), # Table II, page 877, 10. Score, noCC # column 1 (a): 56/70-48/80: [0.0524; 0.3339] Prop.diff(x=c(56,70-56),y=c(48,80-48), alternative="two.sided", conf.level=0.95, CImethod="NHS") Prop.diff(x=c(56,70-56),y=c(48,80-48), alternative="greater", conf.level=0.975, CImethod="NHS") Prop.diff(x=c(56,70-56),y=c(48,80-48), alternative="less", conf.level=0.975, CImethod="NHS") # 2.Comparison with results presented in Newcombe (1998), # Table II, page 877, 10. Score, noCC # column 2 (b): 9/10-3/10: [0.1705; 0.8090] Prop.diff(x=c(9,1),y=c(3,7), alternative="two.sided", conf.level=0.95, CImethod="NHS") # 3.Comparison with results presented in Newcombe (1998), # Table II, page 877, 10. Score, noCC # column 2 (h): 10/10-0/10: [0.6075; 1.000] Prop.diff(x=c(10,0),y=c(0,10), alternative="two.sided", conf.level=0.95, CImethod="NHS") # II. Risk ratio, Score # Score interval according to Gart and Nam (1988) # 1.Comparison with results presented in Gart and Nam (1998), # Section 5 (page 327), Example 1 # x1/n1=8/15 x0/n0=4/15: # Log: [0.768, 4.65] # Score: [0.815; 5.34] # Log (GNC) Prop.ratio(x=c(8,7),y=c(4,11), alternative="two.sided", conf.level=0.95, CImethod="GNC") # Score (Score) Prop.ratio(x=c(8,7),y=c(4,11), alternative="two.sided", conf.level=0.95, CImethod="Score") Prop.ratio(x=c(8,7),y=c(4,11), alternative="less", conf.level=0.975, CImethod="Score") Prop.ratio(x=c(8,7),y=c(4,11), alternative="greater", conf.level=0.975, CImethod="Score") # 2.Comparison with results presented in Gart and Nam (1998), # Section 5 (page 328), Example 2 # x1/n1=6/10 x0/n0=6/20: # Log: [0.883, 4.32] # Score: [0.844; 4.59] # Log (GNC) Prop.ratio(x=c(6,4),y=c(6,14), alternative="two.sided", conf.level=0.95, CImethod="GNC") # Score (Score) Prop.ratio(x=c(6,4),y=c(6,14), alternative="two.sided", conf.level=0.95, CImethod="Score")