A trend test for dichotomous endpoints analogous to the nonparametric Jonckheere test is developed. The power of this and all other single trend tests for dichotomous endpoints strongly depends on the shape of the dose response curve. Combined tests which have a stable power over a wide range of the ordered alternative are suggested. One can combine several contrast tests to a so-called adjustive test which is more powerful than a Cochran-Armitage test with equally-spaced scores. The latter was recommended by Armitage (1) in case there is no a priori knowledge of the type of the trend.
ArmitageP. Tests for linear trends in proportions and frequencies. Biometrics.1955;11:375–386.
2.
GartJJKrewskiDLeePNTaroneREWahrendorfJ. Statistical methods in cancer research, Vol. III. The design and analysis of long term animal experiments.Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 1986.
3.
SuissaSBlaisL. Binary regression with continuous outcomes. Stat Med.1995;14:247–255.
4.
BartholomewDJ. Ordered tests in the analysis of variance. Biometrika.1961;48:325–332.
5.
RobertsonTWrightFTDykstraRL. Order restricted statistical inference.New York: Wiley; 1988.
6.
OluyedeBO. Tests for equality of several binomial populations against an order restricted alternative and model selection for one-dimensional multinomials. Biom J.1994;36:17–32.
7.
Federal Register.No. 50, Vol. 50. Washington; 1985.
8.
CochranWG. Some methods for strengthening the common χ2 tests. Biometrics.1954;10:417–451.
9.
PortierCHoelD. Type 1 error of trend tests in proportions and the design of cancer screens. Comm Stat-Theory Meth.1984;A13:1–14.
10.
TaroneREGartJJ. On the robustness of combined tests for trends in proportions. J Am Stat Assoc.1980;75: 110–116.
11.
WilliamsDA. Tests for differences between several small proportions. App Stat.1988;37:421–434.
12.
SuissaSShusterJJ. Exact unconditional sample sizes for the 2 × 2 binomial trial. J R Statist Soc.1985;A148: 317–327.
13.
StorerBEKimC. Exact properties of some exact test statistics for comparing two binomial proportions. J Am Stat Assoc.1990;85:146–155.
14.
MehtaCRHiltonJF. Exact power of conditional and unconditional tests: Going beyond the 2 × 2 contingency table. Am Stat.1993;47:91–98.
15.
RubergSJ. Contrasts for identifying the minimum effective dose. J Am Stat Assoc.1989;84:816–822.
16.
TamhaneACHochbergYDunnettCW. Multiple test procedures for dose finding. Biometrics.1996;52:21–37.
17.
AbelsonRPTukeyJW. Efficient utilization of non-numerical information in quantitative analysis: General theory and the case of simple order. Ann Math Statist.1963;34:1347–1369.
18.
HothornLALehmacherW. A simple testing procedure ‘control versus k treatments’ for one-sided ordered alternatives, with application in toxicology. Biom J.1991;33:179–189.
19.
NeuhäuserMHothornLA. Trendtests für dichotome Endpunkte. Presented on the 41st Biometric Conference of the German Region of the International Biometric Society; 1995.
20.
JonckheereAR. A distribution-free k-sample test against ordered alternatives. Biometrika.1954;41:133–145.
21.
GraubardBIKornEL. Choice of column scores for testing independence in ordered 2 × K contingency tables. Biometrics.1987;43:471–476.
22.
NeuhäuserM. Trendtests bei a priori unbekanntem Erwartungswertprofil. (Trend tests for a priori unknown shapes.) Doctoral Thesis, Dortmund; 1996.
23.
GastwirthJL. The use of maximin efficiency robust tests in combining contingency tables and survival analysis. J Am Stat Assoc.1985;80:380–384.
24.
BerryJJ. A simulation-based approach to some nonparametric statistics problems. Observations.1995;5:19–26.
