425 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29929477)
1. Comparing performance between log-binomial and robust Poisson regression models for estimating risk ratios under model misspecification.
Chen W; Qian L; Shi J; Franklin M
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2018 Jun; 18(1):63. PubMed ID: 29929477
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Performance of models for estimating absolute risk difference in multicenter trials with binary outcome.
Pedroza C; Truong VT
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2016 Aug; 16(1):113. PubMed ID: 27576307
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparison of robustness to outliers between robust poisson models and log-binomial models when estimating relative risks for common binary outcomes: a simulation study.
Chen W; Shi J; Qian L; Azen SP
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2014 Jun; 14():82. PubMed ID: 24965498
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A comparison of two methods for estimating prevalence ratios.
Petersen MR; Deddens JA
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2008 Feb; 8():9. PubMed ID: 18307814
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Parameter estimation and goodness-of-fit in log binomial regression.
Blizzard L; Hosmer DW
Biom J; 2006 Feb; 48(1):5-22. PubMed ID: 16544809
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Odds ratios from logistic, geometric, Poisson, and negative binomial regression models.
Sroka CJ; Nagaraja HN
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2018 Oct; 18(1):112. PubMed ID: 30342488
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Performance of the modified Poisson regression approach for estimating relative risks from clustered prospective data.
Yelland LN; Salter AB; Ryan P
Am J Epidemiol; 2011 Oct; 174(8):984-92. PubMed ID: 21841157
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Robust estimation of the variance in moment methods for extra-binomial and extra-Poisson variation.
Moore DF; Tsiatis A
Biometrics; 1991 Jun; 47(2):383-401. PubMed ID: 1912253
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Reducing Monte Carlo error in the Bayesian estimation of risk ratios using log-binomial regression models.
Salmerón D; Cano JA; Chirlaque MD
Stat Med; 2015 Aug; 34(19):2755-67. PubMed ID: 25944082
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. An Alternative Perspective on the Robust Poisson Method for Estimating Risk or Prevalence Ratios.
Talbot D; Mésidor M; Chiu Y; Simard M; Sirois C
Epidemiology; 2023 Jan; 34(1):1-7. PubMed ID: 36125349
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Accurate variance estimation for prevalence ratios.
Wolkewitz M; Bruckner T; Schumacher M
Methods Inf Med; 2007; 46(5):567-71. PubMed ID: 17938780
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A blended link approach to relative risk regression.
Clark RG; Barr M
Stat Methods Med Res; 2018 Nov; 27(11):3325-3339. PubMed ID: 29298596
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Negative log-binomial model with optimal robust variance to estimate the prevalence ratio, in cross-sectional population studies.
Ibáñez-Pinilla M; Villalba-Niño S; Olaya-Galán NN
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2023 Oct; 23(1):219. PubMed ID: 37794385
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Complementary log-log regression for the estimation of covariate-adjusted prevalence ratios in the analysis of data from cross-sectional studies.
Penman AD; Johnson WD
Biom J; 2009 Jun; 51(3):433-42. PubMed ID: 19588454
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Alternatives for logistic regression in cross-sectional studies: an empirical comparison of models that directly estimate the prevalence ratio.
Barros AJ; Hirakata VN
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2003 Oct; 3():21. PubMed ID: 14567763
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Zero-inflated Poisson and binomial regression with random effects: a case study.
Hall DB
Biometrics; 2000 Dec; 56(4):1030-9. PubMed ID: 11129458
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Efficient estimation and prediction for the Bayesian binary spatial model with flexible link functions.
Roy V; Evangelou E; Zhu Z
Biometrics; 2016 Mar; 72(1):289-98. PubMed ID: 26331903
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Approaches for dealing with various sources of overdispersion in modeling count data: Scale adjustment versus modeling.
Payne EH; Hardin JW; Egede LE; Ramakrishnan V; Selassie A; Gebregziabher M
Stat Methods Med Res; 2017 Aug; 26(4):1802-1823. PubMed ID: 26031359
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Estimating relative risks in multicenter studies with a small number of centers - which methods to use? A simulation study.
Pedroza C; Truong VTT
Trials; 2017 Nov; 18(1):512. PubMed ID: 29096682
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
