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. Variance and confidence limits in validation studies based on comparison between three different types of measurements. Ferrari P; Kaaks R; Riboli E J Epidemiol Biostat; 2000; 5(5):303-13. PubMed ID: 11142606 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The meaning of the bias uncertainty measure. Bartley DL Ann Occup Hyg; 2008 Aug; 52(6):519-25. PubMed ID: 18535088 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Overview of agreement statistics for medical devices. Lin L J Biopharm Stat; 2008; 18(1):126-44. PubMed ID: 18161545 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The effect of sample size and bias on the reliability of estimates of error: a comparative study of Dahlberg's formula. Springate SD Eur J Orthod; 2012 Apr; 34(2):158-63. PubMed ID: 21447784 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A comparison of several methods for analyzing censored data. Hewett P; Ganser GH Ann Occup Hyg; 2007 Oct; 51(7):611-32. PubMed ID: 17940277 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Out-of-specification test results from the statistical point of view. Köppel H; Schneider B; Wätzig H J Pharm Biomed Anal; 2007 Jul; 44(3):718-29. PubMed ID: 17462848 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Bias in error estimation when using cross-validation for model selection. Varma S; Simon R BMC Bioinformatics; 2006 Feb; 7():91. PubMed ID: 16504092 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Assessment of quality performance parameters for straight line calibration curves related to the spread of the abscissa values around their mean. De Beer JO; De Beer TR; Goeyens L Anal Chim Acta; 2007 Feb; 584(1):57-65. PubMed ID: 17386585 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Measurement of Goldmann applanation tonometer calibration error. Choudhari NS; George R; Baskaran M; Vijaya L; Dudeja N Ophthalmology; 2009 Jan; 116(1):3-8. PubMed ID: 18708256 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Sample size, power calculations, and their implications for the cost of thorough studies of drug induced QT interval prolongation. Malik M; Hnatkova K; Batchvarov V; Gang Y; Smetana P; Camm AJ Pacing Clin Electrophysiol; 2004 Dec; 27(12):1659-69. PubMed ID: 15613131 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Linear mixed models for replication data to efficiently allow for covariate measurement error. Bartlett JW; De Stavola BL; Frost C Stat Med; 2009 Nov; 28(25):3158-78. PubMed ID: 19777493 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Measurement variation in method comparison studies: an empirical examination. Ottenbacher KJ; Tomchek SD Arch Phys Med Rehabil; 1994 May; 75(5):505-12. PubMed ID: 8185441 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A new method for dealing with measurement error in explanatory variables of regression models. Freedman LS; Fainberg V; Kipnis V; Midthune D; Carroll RJ Biometrics; 2004 Mar; 60(1):172-81. PubMed ID: 15032787 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The accuracy of continued clinical use of goldmann applanation tonometers with known calibration errors. Sandhu SS; Chattopadhyay S; Amariotakis GA; Skarmoutsos F; Birch MK; Ray-Chaudhuri N Ophthalmology; 2009 Jan; 116(1):9-13. PubMed ID: 18801579 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Nakagawa S; Cuthill IC Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc; 2007 Nov; 82(4):591-605. PubMed ID: 17944619 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]