Measurement imprecision: ignore or investigate?
- 7 March 1992
- journal article
- editorial
- Published by Elsevier in The Lancet
- Vol. 339 (8793) , 587-588
- https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-6736(92)90872-z
Abstract
No abstract availableKeywords
This publication has 13 references indexed in Scilit:
- The quality of health services research in medical practice in the United Kingdom.Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 1991
- The fetal heart rate trace is normal, isn't it?: Observer agreement of categorical assessmentsThe Lancet, 1991
- How independent are “independent” effects? relative risk estimation when correlated exposures are measured impreciselyJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1991
- Within-person fluctuations of serum cholesterol and lipoproteinsArchives of internal medicine (1960), 1990
- Blood pressure, stroke, and coronary heart disease: Part 1, prolonged differences in blood pressure: prospective observational studies corrected for the regression dilution biasPublished by Elsevier ,1990
- A Review of the Effects of Random Measurement Error on Relative Risk Estimates in Epidemiological StudiesInternational Journal of Epidemiology, 1989
- STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENTThe Lancet, 1986
- Risk factors for ischaemic heart disease: the prospective phase of the British Regional Heart Study.Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 1985
- Epidemiology as a Guide to Clinical DecisionsNew England Journal of Medicine, 1980
- The Reliability of Clinical Methods, Data and JudgmentsNew England Journal of Medicine, 1975