Original articleHow independent are “independent” effects? relative risk estimation when correlated exposures are measured imprecisely
References (33)
- et al.
Blood pressure, stroke and coronary heart disease, Part 1: Effects of prolonged differences in blood pressure—evidence from nine prospective observational studies corrected for the regression dilution bias
Lancet
(1990) Spurious effects from an extraneous variable
J Chron Dis
(1966)Coronary artery disease: raised cholesterol or triglycerides?
Int J Cardiol
(1984)- et al.
Regression estimates after correcting for attenuation
J Am Stat Assoc
(1978) - et al.
A review of the effects of random measurement error on relative risk estimates in epidemiological studies
Int J Epidemiol
(1989) - et al.
Correction of logistic regression relative risk estimates and confidence intervals for systematic within-person measurement error
Stat Med
(1989) - et al.
Smoking and lung cancer: recent evidence and a discussion of some questions
J Natl Cancer Inst
(1959) Assessing effects of confounding variables
Am J Epidemiol
(1978)- et al.
Statistical methods in cancer research
Case-Control Studies
(1982)
Estimating and correcting for confounder misclassification
Am J Epidemiol
(1989)
Methodological issues in case-control studies III: The effect of joint misclassification of risk factors and confounding factors upon estimation and power
Int J Epidemiol
(1984)
Confounding and misclassification
Am J Epidemiol
(1985)
The effect of misclassification in the presence of covariates
Am J Epidemiol
(1980)
Misclassification in case-control studies with two dichotomous risk factors
Rev Epidemiol Same Publ
(1986)
Measurement error and its impact on partial correlation and multiple linear regression analysis
Am J Epidemdol
(1988)
Cited by (0)
Copyright © 1991 Published by Elsevier Inc.