Vollset S E
Section for Medical Informatics and Statistics, University of Bergen, Haukeland Hospital, Norway.
Stat Med. 1993 May 15;12(9):809-24. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780120902.
Thirteen methods for computing binomial confidence intervals are compared based on their coverage properties, widths and errors relative to exact limits. The use of the standard textbook method, x/n +/- 1.96 square root of [(x/n)(1-x/n)/n], or its continuity corrected version, is strongly discouraged. A commonly cited rule of thumb stating that alternatives to exact methods may be used when the estimated proportion p is such that np and n(1(-)p) both exceed 5 does not ensure adequate accuracy. Score limits are easily calculated from closed form solutions to quadratic equations and can be used at all times. Based on coverage functions, the continuity corrected score method is recommended over exact methods. Its conservative nature should be kept in mind, as should the wider fluctuation of actual coverage that accompanies omission of the continuity correction.
基于二项式置信区间的覆盖特性、宽度以及相对于精确界限的误差，对13种计算二项式置信区间的方法进行了比较。强烈不建议使用标准教科书方法，即x/n ± 1.96√[(x/n)(1 - x/n)/n]，或其连续性校正版本。一个常被引用的经验法则称，当估计比例p满足np和n(1 - p)均超过5时，可以使用精确方法的替代方法，但这并不能确保足够的准确性。得分界限可通过二次方程的封闭形式解轻松计算得出，并且可随时使用。基于覆盖函数，推荐使用连续性校正得分方法而非精确方法。应牢记其保守性质，以及省略连续性校正时实际覆盖率会出现的更大波动。
