These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

159 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20161766)

  • 21. Investigating impacts of positional error on potential health care accessibility.
    Bell S; Wilson K; Shah TI; Gersher S; Elliott T
    Spat Spatiotemporal Epidemiol; 2012 Apr; 3(1):17-29. PubMed ID: 22469488
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Smartphone-assisted spatial data collection improves geographic information quality: pilot study using a birth records dataset.
    Xu X; Hu H; Ha S; Han D
    Geospat Health; 2016 Nov; 11(3):482. PubMed ID: 27903063
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Evaluation of the positional difference between two common geocoding methods.
    Duncan DT; Castro MC; Blossom JC; Bennett GG; Gortmaker SL
    Geospat Health; 2011 May; 5(2):265-73. PubMed ID: 21590677
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Role of geographic information systems in birth defects surveillance and research.
    Siffel C; Strickland MJ; Gardner BR; Kirby RS; Correa A
    Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol; 2006 Nov; 76(11):825-33. PubMed ID: 17094141
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Zip code caveat: bias due to spatiotemporal mismatches between zip codes and US census-defined geographic areas--the Public Health Disparities Geocoding Project.
    Krieger N; Waterman P; Chen JT; Soobader MJ; Subramanian SV; Carson R
    Am J Public Health; 2002 Jul; 92(7):1100-2. PubMed ID: 12084688
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Spatial implications associated with using Euclidean distance measurements and geographic centroid imputation in health care research.
    Jones SG; Ashby AJ; Momin SR; Naidoo A
    Health Serv Res; 2010 Feb; 45(1):316-27. PubMed ID: 19780852
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Improving geocoding matching rates of structured addresses in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
    Cortes TR; Silveira IHD; Junger WL
    Cad Saude Publica; 2021; 37(7):e00039321. PubMed ID: 34346979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Match rate and positional accuracy of two geocoding methods for epidemiologic research.
    Zhan FB; Brender JD; De Lima I; Suarez L; Langlois PH
    Ann Epidemiol; 2006 Nov; 16(11):842-9. PubMed ID: 17027286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Positional accuracy of two methods of geocoding.
    Ward MH; Nuckols JR; Giglierano J; Bonner MR; Wolter C; Airola M; Mix W; Colt JS; Hartge P
    Epidemiology; 2005 Jul; 16(4):542-7. PubMed ID: 15951673
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Positional accuracy of geocoding from residential postal codes versus full street addresses.
    Khan S; Pinault L; Tjepkema M; Wilkins R
    Health Rep; 2018 Feb; 29(2):3-9. PubMed ID: 29465738
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Accuracy of two geocoding methods for geographic information system-based exposure assessment in epidemiological studies.
    Faure E; Danjou AM; Clavel-Chapelon F; Boutron-Ruault MC; Dossus L; Fervers B
    Environ Health; 2017 Feb; 16(1):15. PubMed ID: 28235407
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Missing stage and grade in Maryland prostate cancer surveillance data, 1992-1997.
    Klassen AC; Curriero F; Kulldorff M; Alberg AJ; Platz EA; Neloms ST
    Am J Prev Med; 2006 Feb; 30(2 Suppl):S77-87. PubMed ID: 16458794
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Error propagation models to examine the effects of geocoding quality on spatial analysis of individual-level datasets.
    Zandbergen PA; Hart TC; Lenzer KE; Camponovo ME
    Spat Spatiotemporal Epidemiol; 2012 Apr; 3(1):69-82. PubMed ID: 22469492
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. [Volume and health outcomes: evidence from systematic reviews and from evaluation of Italian hospital data].
    Amato L; Colais P; Davoli M; Ferroni E; Fusco D; Minozzi S; Moirano F; Sciattella P; Vecchi S; Ventura M; Perucci CA
    Epidemiol Prev; 2013; 37(2-3 Suppl 2):1-100. PubMed ID: 23851286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Assessing the Certainty of Locations Produced by an Address Geocoding System.
    Davis CA; Fonseca FT
    Geoinformatica; 2007; 11(1):103-129. PubMed ID: 32214874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Geographic bias related to geocoding in epidemiologic studies.
    Oliver MN; Matthews KA; Siadaty M; Hauck FR; Pickle LW
    Int J Health Geogr; 2005 Nov; 4():29. PubMed ID: 16281976
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Address at Diagnosis: Place Matters.
    Sherman RL
    J Registry Manag; 2017; 44(2):76-7. PubMed ID: 29611689
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Comparing a single-stage geocoding method to a multi-stage geocoding method: how much and where do they disagree?
    Lovasi GS; Weiss JC; Hoskins R; Whitsel EA; Rice K; Erickson CF; Psaty BM
    Int J Health Geogr; 2007 Mar; 6():12. PubMed ID: 17367520
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Multiple imputation for handling missing outcome data when estimating the relative risk.
    Sullivan TR; Lee KJ; Ryan P; Salter AB
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Sep; 17(1):134. PubMed ID: 28877666
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.