메뉴 건너뛰기
Statistics in Medicine
Volumn 29, Issue 28, 2010, Pages 2965-2966
Authors' Reply
Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]
Indexed keywords

CORRELATION ANALYSIS; EFFECT SIZE; HUMAN; LETTER; RELIABILITY; RISK FACTOR; SAMPLE SIZE; SAMPLING ERROR; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SURVIVAL; VALIDITY;
EID: 78649543961     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.4075     Document Type: Letter
Times cited : (1)
References (10)
  • 2
    • 77952818043 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Empirical vs. natural weighting in random effects meta-analysis
    • Shuster JJ. Empirical vs. natural weighting in random effects meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine 2010; 29:1259-1265.
    • (2010) Statistics in Medicine , vol.29 , pp. 1259-1265
    • Shuster, J.J.1
  • 3
    • 77952859073 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Reply to discussion of Empirical vs. natural weighting in random effects meta-analysis
    • huster JJ, Hatton RC, Hendeles L, Winterstein AG. Reply to discussion of Empirical vs. natural weighting in random effects meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine 2010; 29:1272-1281.
    • (2010) Statistics in Medicine , vol.29 , pp. 1272-1281
    • huster, J.J.1    Hatton, R.C.2    Hendeles, L.3    Winterstein, A.G.4
  • 4
    • 77952840729 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Comments on Empirical vs. natural weighting in random effects meta-analysis
    • Laird N, Fitzmaurice G, Ding X. Comments on Empirical vs. natural weighting in random effects meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine 2010; 29:1266-1267.
    • (2010) Statistics in Medicine , vol.29 , pp. 1266-1267
    • Laird, N.1    Fitzmaurice, G.2    Ding, X.3
  • 5
    • 77952844221 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Comments on Empirical vs. natural weighting in random effects meta-analysis
    • Waksman JA. Comments on Empirical vs. natural weighting in random effects meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine 2010; 29:1268-1269.
    • (2010) Statistics in Medicine , vol.29 , pp. 1268-1269
    • Waksman, J.A.1
  • 6
    • 77952827715 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Comments on Empirical vs. natural weighting in random effects meta-analysis
    • Thompson SG, Higgins JPT. Comments on Empirical vs. natural weighting in random effects meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine 2010; 29:1270-1271.
    • (2010) Statistics in Medicine , vol.29 , pp. 1270-1271
    • Thompson, S.G.1    Higgins, J.P.T.2
  • 8
    • 0034823867 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: guidelines on choice of axis
    • Sterne J, Eggar M. Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: guidelines on choice of axis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2001; 54:1046-1055.
    • (2001) Journal of Clinical Epidemiology , vol.54 , pp. 1046-1055
    • Sterne, J.1    Eggar, M.2
  • 9
    • 35148875463 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Fixed vs. random effects meta-analysis in rare event studies: the rosiglitazone link with myocardial infarction and cardiac death
    • Shuster JJ, Jones LS, Salmon DA. Fixed vs. random effects meta-analysis in rare event studies: the rosiglitazone link with myocardial infarction and cardiac death. Statistics in Medicine 2007; 26:4375-4385.
    • (2007) Statistics in Medicine , vol.26 , pp. 4375-4385
    • Shuster, J.J.1    Jones, L.S.2    Salmon, D.A.3
  • 10
    • 0028932732 scopus 로고
    • ISIS-4. A randomised factorial trial assessing early oral captopril, oral mononitrate, and intravenous magnesium sulphate in 58, 050 patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction
    • ISIS-4 Collaborative Group,
    • ISIS-4 Collaborative Group, ISIS-4. A randomised factorial trial assessing early oral captopril, oral mononitrate, and intravenous magnesium sulphate in 58, 050 patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction. Lancet 1995; 345:669-687.
    • (1995) Lancet , vol.345 , pp. 669-687

* 이 정보는 Elsevier사의 SCOPUS DB에서 KISTI가 분석하여 추출한 것입니다.