[Jackknife and bootstrap].

M Chavance

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 1439063

[Jackknife and bootstrap].

M Chavance

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The jackknife and the bootstrap are two non parametric methods which provide estimates- of the bias and the variance of an estimator, without any assumption about its statistical distribution. The jackknife is based on the observation of the estimator for subsamples, generally of size n-1, obtained from the original sample. The bootstrap is based on the observation of the estimator on size n samples drawn from the original sample. The two methods are presented, their principle is illustrated through their application to simple examples and to more complex epidemiological problems.

Explore related subjects

Bias Observer Variation Sampling Studies Journal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

M Chavance. 1992. [Jackknife and bootstrap].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1439063/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 ± 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias↗

PubMed1992

EMF research.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Bias↗

PubMed1992

The general medical record. Concepts and suggestions for implementation.

Our view of a general medical record consists of a combination of distinct departmental- and specialty-specific medical records and an organizing kernel that contains arguably critical information. Because this system allows each clinical entity to evolve its own system, clinical priorities do not have to be negotiated or compromised. Additionally, subsystem or departmental medical records can be easily revised without disturbing the general medical record because of the modular design. Although the system seems robust with respect to design considerations, only implementation can provide adequate tests.

Bias↗