Techniques
A Review of Basic Biostatistics
Kimberly A. Dukes1,* and Lisa M. Sullivan2
1
DM-STAT, Incorporated, 1 Salem Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
2
Department of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, 715 Albany Street, Boston, MA 02118, USA
*Correspondence: kim.dukes@dmstat.com
Introduction
The appropriate statistical analysis depends on the
research question of interest, the study design, and the
nature of the variables being examined. In this paper, we
review basic biostatistical procedures. We describe the
procedures in some detail and provide references for
interested readers. We then discuss sample size require-
ments, which are critical in both designing studies and in
interpreting research results.
There are two phases to statistical analysis: descriptive
statistics and statistical inference. As the names would
suggest, descriptive statistics are used to describe
key study variables, whereas statistical inference is
employed to make generalizations or to draw inferences
about larger populations based on study data.
In every study, we develop a statistical analysis plan to
match specific study objectives. The objectives should
be focused on one or several primary outcome variables.
The simplest study has one primary outcome variable
and the appropriate descriptive statistics depend on the
nature of that primary outcome variable. The appropriate
procedures for statistical inference also depend on the
distribution of the primary outcome as well as the num-
ber of comparison groups involved and whether these
groups are related (i.e., independent versus matched/
paired). Each of these issues is described below.
Classification of the Primary Outcome
For analytic purposes, variables are classified as continu-
ous or discrete. Continuous variables, sometimes called
quantitative or measurement variables, assume any value
between a theoretical minimum and maximum. Examples
include protein expression levels and serum biomarkers.
Discrete variables can be thought of as having a fixed num-
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics by Obesity Statusa
Characteristic Normal Weight (n = 20)
Age (years) 50.2 ± 7.3
Women (%) 42.8
Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) 124.9 ± 17.1
Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) 80.4 ± 9.1
Triglycerides (mg/dl) 115.2 ± 88.9
Diabetes (%) 4.6
Total/HDL cholesterol ratio 4.7 ± 1.6
Means ± standard deviations or percentages.
a
Normal weight, body mass index (BMI) < 25; overweight, BMI 25.0–29.9; obese, BMI ≥ 30.
50  ©2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
ber of categories. Each response is classified into one of
several possible categories. The categories can be ordered
or unordered, and these are called ordinal and categorical
or nominal variables, respectively. Obesity status (normal,
overweight, or obese) is an example of an ordinal variable;
gender is an example of a nominal variable (male, female).
Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics for continuous variables should
always include a measure of location (e.g., a typical value)
and also a measure of variability. In most situations, the
mean is the appropriate measure of a typical value and
the standard deviation is the appropriate measure of vari-
ability. However, there are exceptions. When a variable
is subject to extreme values, the mean may be artificially
inflated or deflated depending on whether the extremes are
on the high or low ends of the distribution. In the presence
of extremes, the standard deviation can also be inflated.
In this situation, a more appropriate measure of a typical
value is the median (i.e., the value that holds 50% of the
values above it and 50% of the values below it). The median
is unaffected by extremes. When there are extremes, the
interquartile range or difference between the third (Q3) and
first (Q1) quartiles (i.e., Q3 − Q1) is the appropriate measure
of variability. Determining whether there are extremes in
the data becomes important in determining which statis-
tics are most appropriate to describe the primary outcome.
There are several guidelines that are used for determin-
ing extremes (D’Agostino et al., 2004). A popular guideline
suggests that extremes are values that are either below
Q1 − 1.5 (Q3 − Q1) or above Q3 + 1.5 (Q3 − Q1). Descrip-
tive statistics for discrete variables include the number and
proportions (or percentages) of respondents or sampling
units in each response category.
Overweight (n = 20) Obese (n = 20)
51.8 ± 6.9 52.1 ± 7.1
48.1 53.6
128.7 ± 16.3 131.4 ± 15.9
82.2 ± 8.7 84.9 ± 7.9
117.6 ± 85.8 122.5 ± 89.2
5.1 7.4
4.5 ± 1.5 4.2 ± 1.9
Techniques
Figure 1. Box-and-Whisker Plot for Serum RBP4 by Obesity
Status
Normal weight, BMI < 25; overweight, BMI 25.0–29.9; obese, BMI
≥ 30. The data in these figures are hypothetical and are used for
­illustration purposes only.
Table 1 contains summary statistics on participants in
a study to assess the association between serum retinol
binding protein (RBP4) and obesity status. Means and
standard deviations are presented for continuous charac-
teristics and percentages for discrete characteristics. Note
the large standard deviation relative to the mean for trig-
lycerides in each group, suggesting that the distribution of
triglycerides is not symmetric. For the normal distribution,
the range (minimum to maximum) is approximately equal to
the mean plus or minus three standard deviations. In this
case, it would be more appropriate to present medians and
interquartile ranges for triglycerides.
When preparing tables, it is important to limit the num-
ber of decimal places so as not to overstate the preci-
sion in the analysis (typically one decimal place more
than the original unit of measurement). In addition, the
sample sizes should always be provided, as should the
scale or units of measurement for each characteristic.
Graphical Displays
Graphical displays are extremely powerful to illustrate
distributions of responses or to show associations. Box-
Figure 3. Scatter Plot Showing Association between BMI
and Serum RBP4
Figure 2. Bar Chart for Diabetes by Obesity Status
Normal weight, BMI < 25; overweight, BMI 25.0–29.9; obese, BMI ≥ 30.
and-whisker plots are most appropriate for continuous
outcomes, whereas histograms and bar charts are appro-
priate for ordinal and categorical outcomes, respectively.
Figure 1 is a side-by-side box-and-whisker plot display-
ing the distribution of serum RBP4 in each obesity group.
The “box” contains the middle 50% of the distribution (i.e.,
Q1 is the bottom of the box and Q3 is the top of the box) and
the median is the horizontal line in between. The range of
the data (minimum to maximum) is indicated by the vertical
line. The serum RBP4 levels increase by obesity status.
Histograms are appropriate to display information on
ordinal outcomes, and bar charts are appropriate for cat-
egorical outcomes. Figure 2 displays the increasing pro-
portions of diabetics by obesity status.
Graphical displays are also extremely useful for
describing associations. Scatter plots are appropri-
ate when both variables are continuous. Figure 3 is
a scatter plot showing the association between body
mass index (BMI) and serum RBP4. Figure 4 displays
the mean serum RBP4 levels by obesity status. The
bars represent the means and the error bars show
the standard errors. Standard errors reflect sampling
variability or variation in the means and are appropri-
Figure 4. Mean RBP4 by Obesity Status
Normal weight, BMI < 25; overweight, BMI 25.0–29.9; obese, BMI ≥ 30.
©2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.  51

ate when comparing means among groups. (Standard
deviations summarize variability in individual scores.)
Note the contrast between Figures 1 and 4. Figure 1
displays the distribution of individual serum RBP4 lev-
els, whereas Figure 4 displays summary statistics on
serum RBP4 levels by obesity status. The most appro-
priate display depends on the objective (e.g., to dem-
onstrate variability in individual scores or to compare
means among groups).
Unit of Analysis
The unit of analysis refers to the entity on which mea-
surements are made. In clinical studies, the unit of
analysis is often the individual. Some studies may
measure a particular characteristic or biomarker in the
same individual repeatedly over time. Statistical pro-
cedures assume independence of the units of analy-
sis. Thus, in study designs where units are measured
repeatedly over time, the analyses must reconcile
these dependencies.
Number of Comparison Groups and Relationships
among Groups
In many statistical applications, it is of interest to com-
pare groups on the basis of the primary outcome(s). For
example, we might want to compare characteristics
shown in Table 1 by obesity status. The nature of the
primary outcome dictates how the comparison will be
made. If the primary outcome is continuous, then means
(e.g., mean ages, blood pressures) or medians (e.g.,
median triglycerides) are compared among groups. If
the primary outcome is discrete (e.g., gender or diabetes
status), then proportions are compared among groups.
The number of comparison groups is important in
determining the appropriate statistical test. One-group
or one-sample procedures are used to compare a single
study sample to a known referent (e.g., a historical com-
parator). Two-group or two-sample procedures are very
popular and can be used, for example, to compare com-
peting treatments (e.g., active drug versus placebo). A
critically important issue is whether the groups are inde-
pendent or matched/paired. Independent groups are
physically separate and are comprised of distinct sam-
pling units (e.g., different experimental units assigned
to the active drug versus placebo), whereas dependent,
matched, or paired groups are often produced when the
same sampling units are measured twice (e.g., before and
after an exposure) or when the sampling units are paired
(e.g., siblings, litter mates). In these situations, proce-
dures are needed to appropriately account for within-
subject variability. This is discussed further below.
Statistical Inference
There are many procedures that are used for statis-
tical inference. Each procedure has assumptions
about the design and about the distribution of the
primary outcome. It is important to recognize that
there are often several ways to analyze data. Different
52  ©2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Techniques
approaches are based on different assumptions and
can have different interpretations. The assumptions
for each procedure are important. If assumptions are
not met, then procedures will fail to maintain desirable
statistical properties (e.g., confidence intervals will not
maintain claimed probabilities, and hypothesis tests
may be more likely to produce incorrect results). Some
assumptions are extremely important and others can
be relaxed. An important assumption is independence
of sampling units. Some procedures are based on the
assumption that the outcome of interest is approxi-
mately normally distributed. Many techniques maintain
their statistical properties in the presence of violations
of this assumption. We will indicate the situations in
which this assumption is important.
There are two general areas of statistical inference—
estimation and hypothesis testing. In estimation, we
generate confidence interval (CI) estimates of unknown
population parameters (e.g., the mean in a single popu-
lation, the difference in proportions in two independent
samples) based on sample data appropriately accounting
for sampling variability. Confidence interval estimates are
interpreted as a range of plausible values for an unknown
population parameter with a probability attached (Sul-
livan, 2006). In hypothesis testing, we formally compare
population parameters based on sample data, again
accounting for sampling variability. We set up competing
hypotheses, called the null and research hypotheses. The
null hypothesis is the no-difference or no-effect state-
ment, whereas the research hypothesis states the antici-
pated or hypothesized difference or effect. A test statistic
is computed which summarizes the sample information
as it relates to the null hypothesis. Hypothesis tests pro-
duce a p value, which is the probability of observing a test
statistic as large or larger than that observed if the null
hypothesis were true (D’Agostino et al., 2004). A small p
value (e.g., p value < 0.05) would suggest that there is less
than a 5% probability of observing a difference as large or
larger than that observed in the study sample, and would
likely lead to rejection of the null hypothesis in favor of the
research hypothesis. The investigator must choose the
appropriate significance criterion on which to make that
decision (e.g., 0.05, 0.01). Both significant (i.e., p value <
0.05) and nonsignificant p values should be provided so
that the reader can judge the significance (or lack thereof)
of the findings.
Procedures for Statistical Inference
We now describe popular procedures for statisti-
cal inference. Investigators must choose whether a
confidence interval approach or a hypothesis testing
approach is appropriate in a given setting. We provide
some examples below to illustrate the difference in
approaches.
One-Sample Procedures for Means and Proportions
As noted above, there are one-sample procedures for
means and proportions. One-sample studies are most
useful when investigating new techniques or technolo-
Techniques

Table 2. Confidence Intervals for the Population

dichotomous response categories. If there are fewer
Mean and Population Proportion
than five sampling units in one or both of the response
categories, then an exact procedure should be used
CI for population meana s
x t (Agresti, 2002).
n
Using the data summarized in Table 1, a 95% confi-
CI for population proportion b
p̂(1 p̂) dence interval for the mean Total/HDL cholesterol ratio
p̂ z
n for participants of normal weight is 4.7 ± 0.7 or (4.0, 5.4).
Thus, we are 95% confident that the true mean Total/
a
Where x is the mean in the study sample, t is the value from
the t distribution reflecting the desired confidence level (e.g., HDL cholesterol ratio for participants of normal weight
95%), s is the standard deviation in the study sample, and n is between 4.0 and 5.4. In the confidence interval, 4.7 is
is the sample size. the mean and 0.7 is the margin of error. The margin of
s error is the product of the t value reflecting the desired
is the standard error (or variability of the sample mean).
n confidence level (95%) and the standard error. Ninety-
b
where p̂ is the proportion in the study sample, z is the value five percent confidence intervals for the mean Total/HDL
from the standard normal distribution reflecting the desired cholesterol ratio for overweight and obese participants
confidence level, and n is the sample size. are (3.8, 5.2) and (3.3, 5.1), respectively.
Using the data summarized in Table 1, a 95% confi-
dence interval for the proportion of diabetics among
gies and a confidence interval estimate for an unknown
obese participants is (0%–19%). This confidence interval
mean or proportion based on the study sample can be
is wide due to the small sample size (n = 20).
very valuable. The confidence interval estimate pro-
In the hypothesis testing approach, a one-sam-
vides a range of plausible values for the unknown mean
ple test can be used, for example, to compare the
or proportion that can be useful, for example, in plan-
observed mean in a study sample to a known mean or
ning future studies (e.g., comparative studies).
the observed proportion in a study sample to a known
The formulas for confidence intervals for the popu-
proportion when the primary outcome is continuous
lation mean and population proportion are shown in
or dichotomous, respectively. For example, suppose
Table 2. The formula for the confidence interval for
a study reports a mean serum RBP4 level of 102.4
the population mean is appropriate with a sample of
for participants with impaired glucose tolerance. An
n independent sampling units and when the charac-
investigator wishes to test whether the mean is higher
teristic under study is approximately normally distrib-
than 102.4 in patients who have had Type 2 diabetes
uted. If the sample size is large (e.g., n > 30), then the
for 10 years or more.
distributional assumption can be relaxed. If the sam-
The tests for the mean and proportion are outlined in
ple size is small and the distribution of the outcome
Table 3. It is important to note that these tests can be
is highly nonnormal, then a nonparametric test (which
criticized, however, because the comparator (i.e., µ0, π0)
does not assume normality), such as the Wilcoxon
is often based on historical data and might not represent
signed rank test, should be used (Rosner, 1995). The
an appropriate comparison. Comparisons are often more
formula for the confidence interval for the population
appropriate when the comparison groups are evaluated
proportion is appropriate as long as the sample has
in parallel or concurrently (see below).
at least five independent sampling units in each of the
Two-Sample Procedures for Means
When the primary outcome is continuous and there
Table 3. Tests of Hypothesis for the Population are two independent comparison groups (e.g., patients
Mean and the Population Proportion assigned to an active drug or placebo, normal versus
Test for Population Test for Population overweight patients), then a confidence interval for the
Mean µ0a Proportion π0b difference in means can be produced or a test for a dif-
Null hypothesis µ = µ0 π = π0 ference in means can be performed. The appropriate
use of the two-independent sample t test assumes that
Research hypothesis µ ≠ µ0 π ≠ π0
there are independent sampling units in each of two
Test statistic x p̂ independent comparison groups, that the outcome is
t z 0

s/ n 0 (1 0 ) approximately normally distributed, and that the vari-

n ances in the groups are comparable. Again, if the sam-
a
Where x is the mean in the study sample, µ0 is the mean ple sizes are large, then the normality is a non-issue.
specified under the null hypothesis, s is the standard devia- Equality of variances (or lack thereof) can be reconciled
tion in the study sample, and n is the sample size. in the procedure with the use of appropriate formulas
s (D’Agostino et al., 2004). If the sample sizes are small
is the standard error (or variability of the sample mean).
n and the data are non-normal, then a nonparametric test
b
where p̂ is the proportion in the study sample, π0 is the such as the Wilcoxon rank sum test should be used
proportion specified under the null hypothesis, and n is the (Rosner, 1995). The confidence interval for the differ-
sample size.
ence in means is given in Table 4.

©2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.  53


Table 4. Confidence Interval and Test of Hypothesis for the Difference in Means
CI for difference in population meansa
Test for difference in independent population means
Null hypothesis
Research hypothesis
Test statistica
a
Where x1 and x2 are the means in the study samples, t is the value from the t distribution reflecting the desired confidence level
(e.g., 95%), sp is the pooled standard deviation (appropriate when the population variances are assumed to be equal and computed
(n 1 1)s 1 (n 2 1)s2
by combining the variances in the two study samples, sp
Using the data summarized in Figure 4, a 95% con-
fidence interval for the difference in mean RBP4 levels
between normal and overweight participants is 28.2 ± 14.1,
or (14.1, 42.3). The difference in means is 28.2 units with a
margin of error of 14.1 units. We are 95% confident that the
true difference in mean RBP4 levels between normal and
overweight participants is between 14.1 and 42.3 units.
Comparing mean RBP4 levels between normal and
overweight using a test of hypothesis (see Table 4) pro-
duces t = −4.92, which is highly statistically significant with
p = 0.0027 (i.e., the mean RBP4 levels are statistically sig-
nificantly different between participants who are of normal
weight as compared to overweight). The confidence inter-
val and test of hypothesis are two different approaches
to making the comparison. The 95% confidence interval
provides the range of plausible values for the difference
in means (i.e., 14.1–42.3), whereas the test of hypothesis
produces the significance of the difference (i.e., p value =
0.0027). Because the confidence interval does not include
0 (i.e., the null value), the confidence interval also indicates
that there is a significant difference in means.
Table 5. Confidence Interval and Test of Hypothesis
for the Mean Difference in Matched or Paired
Samples
CI for population mean differencea sd
xd t
n the equality of means is shown in Table 6.
Test for population mean difference µd
Null hypothesis µd = 0
Research hypothesis µd ≠ 0
Test statistica
t=
a
Where xd is the mean of the difference scores in the study
sample, md is the mean difference specified under the null
hypothesis, t is the value from the t distribution reflecting the
desired confidence level, sd is the standard deviation of the
difference scores in the study sample, and n is the sample
size (i.e., the number of independent sampling units, equal to
the number of pairs).
54  ©2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Techniques
1 1
( x1 x 2 ) t sp
n1 n2
µ1 − µ2
µ1 = µ2
µ1 ≠ µ2
x1 - x 2
t
sp 1 1
n1 n2
2 2
), and n1 and n2 are the respective sample sizes.
n1 n 2 2
When the data are matched or paired, then the analy-
sis is focused on difference scores. For example, sup-
pose a study is conducted in which measures of serum
RBP4 are taken on n sampling units at baseline and then
again after 6 weeks of exposure to an exercise program.
Suppose the objective is to assess the change in the
primary outcome in response to the exercise program.
Because two measurements are taken on each sam-
pling unit, we violate the assumption of independence of
sampling units. The procedure is to compute difference
scores on each unit by subtracting the measurements
(e.g., baseline to 6 weeks). A confidence interval for the
mean difference or a test about the mean difference in
the population can be conducted. The confidence inter-
val formula and the hypothesis testing procedure are
shown in Table 5.
It is very important to note that in the paired test (and
confidence interval for paired data), summary statistics
(i.e., the mean and standard deviation) are based on dif-
ference scores.
Tests for Means in More Than Two Groups
When there are more than two independent groups, the
procedure to test for differences in means is analysis
of variance (ANOVA). In ANOVA, there are k (>2) inde-
pendent groups and again variances among groups are
assumed to be equal. In addition, data are assumed to
follow a normal distribution. The procedure for testing
The above is suitable to test for differences in means
across groups defined by a single factor (e.g., treatments
or exposures). For example, using the data summarized
in Figure 4, we can compare the mean serum RBP4 lev-
els by obesity status using ANOVA. The test produces
F = 19.6, which is highly statistically significant with p =
0.0014 (i.e., the three means are significantly different).
ANOVA is a very general procedure that can also be
used to test for differences in means as a function of
two or more factors. For example, suppose we wish to
test for differences in expression in various cell types
exposed to different experimental conditions. Two-fac-
tor ANOVA is used to test for differences in expression
Techniques
Table 6. Test of Hypothesis for Difference in k
Independent Population Means
Null hypothesis µ1 = µ2 = µ3 = . . . = µk
Research hypothesis Means not all equal
Test statistica
nj (X j X ) 2 /(k 1)
F
(X X j ) 2 /(N k)
a
Where Xj is the mean of the jth study sample, X is the overall
mean (computed by pooling study samples), nj is the sample
size in the jth group, k is the number of groups, and N is the
total sample size (pooling all study samples).
due to cell type, due to experimental condition, and due
to the interaction between the two. For more details on
ANOVA, and higher-order ANOVA in particular, see Ros-
ner (1995) and Cobb (1998).
Another popular application of ANOVA involves taking
repeated assessments on the same sampling units over
time. For example, a study may involve n = 5 participants,
each of whom is measured monthly over a period of 6
months. There are not n = 30 independent sampling units,
but rather five independent units measured six times each.
The appropriate analysis must account for repeated assess-
ments on the same units and is called repeated-measures
ANOVA. For more details, see Littell et al. (1998).
In ANOVA, we test for a difference in k independent
means. If the test is significant, we conclude that the
means are not all equal. Investigators are often inter-
ested in which means are different. A series of pairwise
tests (i.e., comparing means two at a time) can then
be performed to assess specific differences. Each pair-
wise test can be performed using the test for a differ-
ence in independent means described above. However,
because there is a positive probability of incorrectly
rejecting the null hypothesis in each test (specifically,
the level of significance, often selected at 0.05), over a
series of tests this probability of incorrectly rejecting at
least one of the tests can inflate to an unacceptably high
level. When it is of interest to perform pairwise tests (or
other general contrasts), following the rejection of the
null hypothesis in an ANOVA, a multiple comparison
procedure should be used to control the overall level of
significance. There are a number of these procedures
that vary according to the number and nature of the
desired comparisons. A key feature of all tests is their
Table 7. Test of Hypothesis for Difference in
Independent Proportions
Null hypothesis Proportions are all equal
Research hypothesis Proportions are not all equal
Test statistica 2 (O E) 2
E or dependent or repeated-measures designs). This
a
Where O represents the observed frequency in each cell of
the two-way table and E represents the expected frequency
in each cell of the two-way table (under the assumption that
the null hypothesis is true).
explicit control of the overall level of significance across
a set of hypothesis tests. Popular multiple comparison
tests include the Tukey and Fisher’s least significant
difference procedures. When designs include a single
control group and multiple experimental groups and
it is of interest to compare each experimental group
to the control, Dunnett’s procedure is appropriate. It
should be noted that regardless of the specific proce-
dure used, only tests that are of clinical interest should
be performed as opposed to all possible tests.
Tests for Proportions in Two or More Groups
When there are two or more independent groups and the
outcome is dichotomous (or discrete with more than two
categories), the procedure to test for differences in pro-
portions is the chi-square test. The data are organized
into a two-way table, with the outcome variable and the
grouping variable as the rows and columns of the table,
respectively. The numbers of sampling units in each cat-
egory of the response within each group are summed.
The procedure for testing the equality of proportions is
shown in Table 7.
The procedure in Table 7 is suitable to test for differ-
ences in proportions across comparison groups, such
as to test for differences in the proportions of patients
with diabetes across groups defined by obesity status.
The procedure is appropriate when there are a sufficient
number of sampling units in each cell of the table. When
there are fewer sampling units, exact procedures are
required (Agresti, 2002).
Sample Size Considerations
The precision and power of statistical procedures depend
on the sample size or the number of sampling units avail-
able for analysis. In general, the larger the sample size,
the better. Studies should not be too small, because they
will not be able to answer the study question posed. On
the other hand, studies should not be too large, because
resources can be wasted. Studies that are too small or
too large can be viewed as unethical.
Investigators should perform sample size computa-
tions prior to mounting studies to determine the appro-
priate sample size needed. When studies fail to demon-
strate statistical significance (i.e., fail to reject the null
hypothesis), it may be the case that there is no effect of
the treatment or it may be that the study was too small to
demonstrate a difference.
Summary
The appropriate statistical analysis depends on the
research question of interest, the nature of the outcome
variable (e.g., continuous or discrete), the number of
comparison groups, and the specific study design (e.g.,
independent, sometimes called parallel-group designs,
paper is meant to organize the procedures according
to these criteria. There are, however, many details that
require further consideration in the application and inter-
pretation of these procedures.
©2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.  55

References
Agresti, A. (2002). Categorical Data Analysis, Second Edition (New
York: John Wiley & Sons).
Cobb, G. (1998). Introduction to Design and Analysis of Experi-
ments (New York: Springer Verlag).
D’Agostino, R.B., Sullivan, L.M., and Beiser, A. (2004). Introductory
Applied Biostatistics (Belmont, CA: Duxbury Brooks/Cole).
Littell, R.C., Henry, P.R., and Ammerman, C.B. (1998). Statisti-
cal analysis of repeated measures data using SAS procedures. J.
56  ©2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Techniques
Anim. Sci. 76, 1216–1231.
Rosner, B. (1995). Fundamentals of Biostatistics (Belmont, CA:
Duxbury Brooks/Cole).
Sullivan, L.M. (2006). Statistical primer for cardiovascular research:
estimation from samples. Circulation 114, 445–449.
Please cite this article as:
Dukes, K.A., and Sullivan, L.M. (2007). A Review of Basic Biosta-
tistics. In Evaluating Techniques in Biochemical Research, D. Zuk,
ed. (Cambridge, MA: Cell Press), http://www.cellpress.com/misc/
page?page=ETBR.