The Importance of Accounting for Correlated Observations

PM and R

Volumn 2, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 858-861

  Sainani, Kristin ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

SUNSCREEN;

ACCOUNTING; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; CORRELATIONAL STUDY; DIASTOLIC BLOOD PRESSURE; DRUG EFFICACY; EDITORIAL; EXERCISE; EYE DISEASE; HUMAN; MEAN ARTERIAL PRESSURE; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SUNBURN; TWINS;

DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; STATISTICS AS TOPIC;

EID: 77956936241     PISSN: 19341482     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2010.07.482     Document Type: Editorial

References (4)

1. Russak J.E., Chen T., Appa Y., Rigel D.S. A comparison of sunburn protection of high-sun protection factor (SPF) sunscreens: SPF 85 sunscreen is significantly more protective than SPF 50. J Am Acad Dermatol 2010, 62:348-349.
2. McNemar Q. Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentages. Psychometrika 1947, 12:153-157.
3. Divine G.W., Brown J.T., Frazier L.M. The unit of analysis error in studies about physicians' patient care behavior. Gen Intern Med 1992, 7:623-629.
4. Calhoun A.W., Guyatt G.H., Cabana M.D., et al. Addressing the unit of analysis in medical care studies: A systematic review. Med Care 2008, 46:635-643.