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.
2. Comparison of three methods of estimating confidence intervals for stereotactic error. Butler WE Comput Aided Surg; 1999; 4(1):26-36. PubMed ID: 10417828 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 99m Tc-ethylenedicysteine (99mTc-EC) renal clearance determination error for the multiple- and single-sample methods. Surma MJ Nucl Med Rev Cent East Eur; 1998; 1(1):33-40. PubMed ID: 14601007 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Assessment of the relative merits of a few methods to detect evolutionary trends. Laurin M Syst Biol; 2010 Dec; 59(6):689-704. PubMed ID: 20937759 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Evaluation of regression calibration and SIMEX methods in logistic regression when one of the predictors is subject to additive measurement error. Fung KY; Krewski D J Epidemiol Biostat; 1999; 4(2):65-74. PubMed ID: 10619053 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Modeling matching error and its effect on estimates of census coverage error. Biemer PP Surv Methodol; 1988 Jun; 14(1):117-34, 125-43. PubMed ID: 12315617 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Predicting pilot error: testing a new methodology and a multi-methods and analysts approach. Stanton NA; Salmon P; Harris D; Marshall A; Demagalski J; Young MS; Waldmann T; Dekker S Appl Ergon; 2009 May; 40(3):464-71. PubMed ID: 19041088 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Within-species variation and measurement error in phylogenetic comparative methods. Ives AR; Midford PE; Garland T Syst Biol; 2007 Apr; 56(2):252-70. PubMed ID: 17464881 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison of the accuracy of invasive and noninvasive registration methods for image-guided oral implant surgery. Widmann G; Stoffner R; Schullian P; Widmann R; Keiler M; Zangerl A; Puelacher W; Bale RJ Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2010; 25(3):491-8. PubMed ID: 20556247 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Some coverage error models for census data. Wolter KM J Am Stat Assoc; 1986 Jun; 81(394):338-46. PubMed ID: 12155423 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Predicting and correcting bias caused by measurement error in line transect sampling using multiplicative error models. Marques TA Biometrics; 2004 Sep; 60(3):757-63. PubMed ID: 15339299 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Acinetobacter spp. by NCCLS broth microdilution and disk diffusion methods. Swenson JM; Killgore GE; Tenover FC J Clin Microbiol; 2004 Nov; 42(11):5102-8. PubMed ID: 15528702 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Determining the presence of bias error using statistical methods. Kwartowitz DM; Galloway RL; Shiavi RG IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed; 2009 Jan; 13(1):1-4. PubMed ID: 19129017 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Filtered kriging for spatial data with heterogeneous measurement error variances. Christensen WF Biometrics; 2011 Sep; 67(3):947-57. PubMed ID: 21361891 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Effect of progressive visual error amplification on human motor adaptation. Sung C; O'Malley MK IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot; 2011; 2011():5975399. PubMed ID: 22275602 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Causes of focus-error feedthrough in optical-disk systems: astigmatic and obscuration methods. Bernacki BE; Mansuripur M Appl Opt; 1994 Feb; 33(5):735-43. PubMed ID: 20862069 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Error budgets: a system to characterize error source in health care experimentation. Caruso BJ J Manipulative Physiol Ther; 1996; 19(6):385-90. PubMed ID: 8864969 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Sonographic estimation of fetal weight: comparison of bias, precision and consistency using 12 different formulae. Anderson NG; Jolley IJ; Wells JE Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2007 Aug; 30(2):173-9. PubMed ID: 17557378 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Endpoint error in smoothing and differentiating raw kinematic data: an evaluation of four popular methods. Vint PF; Hinrichs RN J Biomech; 1996 Dec; 29(12):1637-42. PubMed ID: 8945665 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]