论文君|NEJM.net

  • 首页
  • 论文句库
  • 交流中心
  • 我要提问
不出版就出局
Publish or Perish
  1. 首页
  2. 方法
  3. 正文

We excluded those with missing data for the primary exposure

2022年6月14日 1950点热度 0人点赞 0条评论

We excluded those with missing data for the primary exposure (ethnicity) and outcome of interest (SARS-CoV-2 infection) from all analyses.

Multiple imputation by chained equations was used to impute missing data in these logistic regression models. The imputation models included all variables used in the final analyses bar those being imputed, including the outcome measure.

Risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in a multiethnic cohort of United Kingdom healthcare workers (UK-REACH): A cross-sectional analysis
PLoS Med. 2022 May 26;19(5):e1004015. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004015. eCollection 2022 May.

标签: Missing Data
最后更新:2022年6月14日

admin

Research is not to publish, but to find the truth.

点赞
< 上一篇
下一篇 >

文章评论

您需要 登录 之后才可以评论
最新问题
  • sci论文小修编辑没给审稿意见 提问人 admin
  • 为什么编辑部说有些审稿人审完了,但仍未收到comments呢? 提问人 admin
  • sci论文添加作者 提问人 admin
  • 一篇参考文献是特刊上发表的SCI论文,页码怎样标注? 提问人 admin
  • 论文申诉:三个审稿人,两个建议补充,一个建议拒稿 提问人 admin
  • 论文已经available online,后续Track工作的问题 提问人 admin
  • 论文返修中调整作者排序要怎么做呢? 提问人 admin
  • 投中elsevier的期刊一分钱都没付 提问人 admin
  • 投稿遇见很难受的事儿:审稿人死扣不放 提问人 admin
  • 何抵制白嫖的一点体会 提问人 admin
最新 热点 随机
最新 热点 随机
The study used existing publicly available and deidentified data The Stanford institutional review board deemed this study exempt as it uses deidentified, administratively collected data. The HPS contains the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4), a well-established and validated screening tool for anxiety and depression. HPS public-use files were used to construct the analytic sample. School of Public Health Institutional Review Board deemed this study exempt. Several study limitations should be acknowledged. Ethical approval was not sought as the data were already publicly available online. We checked the robustness of our findings The aim of this study was twofold. This systematic review and meta-analysis includes previously published observational studies. This indicated there was no requirement for proceeding to a full formal ethics and data protection review by the Usher Research Ethics Group. No overall prospective analysis plan was used. Complete case analyses were used. Study approval was received from Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) of the primary research institution These findings must be interpreted in light of several limitations
This study is not without limitations. All GSHS surveys were approved in each country by both a national government administrative body and an institutional review board or ethics committee Complete case analyses were used. This study was exempt from institutional review board approval These new findings should be examined alongside several study limitations. The study used existing publicly available and deidentified data Student consent was assumed with the completion of the questionnaire. This study is subject to certain limitations. The Stanford institutional review board deemed this study exempt as it uses deidentified, administratively collected data. approval from an Institutional Review Board was not necessary The HPS contains the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4), a well-established and validated screening tool for anxiety and depression. This study has several strengths, but there is also a set of potential study limitations As the current study used retrospective publicly available data, we did not require ethics approval. The IRB at the University of Massachusetts Medical School reviewed the protocol and exempted it from the full committee review Analysis began August 2020 and ended May 2021.

COPYRIGHT © 2021 nejm.net. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Theme Kratos Made By Seaton Jiang