Seemingly Unrelated Regression

Fiebig, Denzil G.

doi:10.1002/9780470996249.ch6

Cited by 69 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 91 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The SUR approach leads to a feasible 1 2 A thorough review of the large literature accumulated on SUR can be found in Srivastava and Dwivedi (1979) and Srivastava and Giles (1987). A survey of more recent developments is provided by Fiebig (2001) and Moon and Perron (2006). GLS estimator, in which OLS is used at …rst-stage for each individual-speci…c equation to obtain consistent estimates of the parameters, including the N (N + 1) =2 distinct entries in the error covariance matrix.…”

Section: The Seemingly Unrelated Regressions Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cross-Sectional Dependence in Panel Data Analysis

Sarafidis

Wansbeek

2011

Econometric Reviews

364

188

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Seemingly Unrelated Regressions Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…27 In other words, mispeci…cation of the model results in both global (factors) and local (spatial) correlations. Transforming in terms of deviations from time-speci…c averages yields…”

Section: Sara…dis and Robertson (2009) Demonstrate That^ IV Is Biasedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-Sectional Dependence in Panel Data Analysis

Sarafidis

Wansbeek

2011

Econometric Reviews

364

188

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Student’s t-tests were used to compare psychological symptoms across study arms. Seemingly unrelated regression equations (SUREs) (Fiebig 2003; Beasley 2008; Kubáček 2013) were used to estimate the associations between randomization into the CM intervention (dichotomous; 1 = CM) and self-reported symptoms of psychological and emotional distress (i.e., scores on the subscales of the BSI). SUREs are identical to normal OLS regression, except that multiple dependent variables can be included, instead of just one.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contingency management reduces symptoms of psychological and emotional distress among homeless, substance-dependent men who have sex with men

Fletcher

Shoptaw

Peck

et al. 2014

Mental Health and Substance Use

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background This prospective analysis evaluated the efficacy of a contingency management (CM) intervention to improve the psychological health of non-treatment seeking, homeless, substance-dependent, men who have sex with men in Los Angeles. It was hypothesized that administration of CM would be associated with reductions in participants’ symptoms of psychological and emotional distress. Methods One hundred and thirty-one participants were randomized into either a voucher-based contingency management (CM; n = 64) condition reinforcing substance abstinence and prosocial/health-promoting behaviors, or to a control condition (n = 67). Participants’ symptoms of psychological and emotional distress were assessed at intake and at 12-months post-randomization. Results Participants randomized into the CM intervention exhibited significantly lower levels of psychological distress in all measured symptom domains up to one year post randomization, reductions not evidenced in the control arm. Omnibus tests resultant from seemingly unrelated regression analysis confirmed that CM was significantly associated with reductions in symptoms of psychological and emotional distress, even when controlling for biomarker-confirmed substance use outcomes (χ2(9) = 17.26; p < 0.05). Conclusions Findings demonstrate that a CM intervention reduced symptoms of psychological and emotional distress among a sample of non-treatment seeking, homeless, substance-dependent men who have sex with men.

show abstract

“…The cost and outcome regressions (see Equations 1 and 2) were run simultaneously using seemingly unrelated regression (SUR). 128 SUR permits the simultaneous estimation of costs and effects, calculated at the individual level, while accounting for unobserved individual characteristics that could affect both costs and effects and lead to potential correlation between these two dependent variables. 129 In addition, the SUR allowed us to control for additional covariates that may affect costs, effects or both.…”

Section: Seemingly Unrelated Regressionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Best-practice prevention alone or with conventional or biological caries management for 3- to 7-year-olds: the FiCTION three-arm RCT

Maguire

Clarkson

Douglas

et al. 2020

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Historically, lack of evidence for effective management of decay in primary teeth has caused uncertainty, but there is emerging evidence to support alternative strategies to conventional fillings, which are minimally invasive and prevention orientated. Objectives The objectives were (1) to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three strategies for managing caries in primary teeth and (2) to assess quality of life, dental anxiety, the acceptability and experiences of children, parents and dental professionals, and caries development and/or progression. Design This was a multicentre, three-arm parallel-group, participant-randomised controlled trial. Allocation concealment was achieved by use of a centralised web-based randomisation facility hosted by Newcastle Clinical Trials Unit. Setting This trial was set in primary dental care in Scotland, England and Wales. Participants Participants were NHS patients aged 3–7 years who were at a high risk of tooth decay and had at least one primary molar tooth with decay into dentine, but no pain/sepsis. Interventions Three interventions were employed: (1) conventional with best-practice prevention (local anaesthetic, carious tissue removal, filling placement), (2) biological with best-practice prevention (sealing-in decay, selective carious tissue removal and fissure sealants) and (3) best-practice prevention alone (dietary and toothbrushing advice, topical fluoride and fissure sealing of permanent teeth). Main outcome measures The clinical effectiveness outcomes were the proportion of children with at least one episode (incidence) and the number of episodes, for each child, of dental pain or dental sepsis or both over the follow-up period. The cost-effectiveness outcomes were the cost per incidence of, and cost per episode of, dental pain and/or dental sepsis avoided over the follow-up period. Results A total of 72 dental practices were recruited and 1144 participants were randomised (conventional arm, n = 386; biological arm, n = 381; prevention alone arm, n = 377). Of these, 1058 were included in an intention-to-treat analysis (conventional arm, n = 352; biological arm, n = 352; prevention alone arm, n = 354). The median follow-up time was 33.8 months (interquartile range 23.8–36.7 months). The proportion of children with at least one episode of pain or sepsis or both was 42% (conventional arm), 40% (biological arm) and 45% (prevention alone arm). There was no evidence of a difference in incidence or episodes of pain/sepsis between arms. When comparing the biological arm with the conventional arm, the risk difference was –0.02 (97.5% confidence interval –0.10 to 0.06), which indicates, on average, a 2% reduced risk of dental pain and/or dental sepsis in the biological arm compared with the conventional arm. Comparing the prevention alone arm with the conventional arm, the risk difference was 0.04 (97.5% confidence interval –0.04 to 0.12), which indicates, on average, a 4% increased risk of dental pain and/or dental sepsis in the prevention alone arm compared with the conventional arm. Compared with the conventional arm, there was no evidence of a difference in episodes of pain/sepsis among children in the biological arm (incident rate ratio 0.95, 97.5% confidence interval 0.75 to 1.21, which indicates that there were slightly fewer episodes, on average, in the biological arm than the conventional arm) or in the prevention alone arm (incident rate ratio 1.18, 97.5% confidence interval 0.94 to 1.48, which indicates that there were slightly more episodes in the prevention alone arm than the conventional arm). Over the willingness-to-pay values considered, the probability of the biological treatment approach being considered cost-effective was approximately no higher than 60% to avoid an incidence of dental pain and/or dental sepsis and no higher than 70% to avoid an episode of pain/sepsis. Conclusions There was no evidence of an overall difference between the three treatment approaches for experience of, or number of episodes of, dental pain or dental sepsis or both over the follow-up period. Future work Recommendations for future work include exploring barriers to the use of conventional techniques for carious lesion detection and diagnosis (e.g. radiographs) and developing and evaluating suitable techniques and strategies for use in young children in primary care. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN77044005. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 1. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

show abstract

Seemingly Unrelated Regression

Cited by 69 publications

References 91 publications

Cross-Sectional Dependence in Panel Data Analysis

Cross-Sectional Dependence in Panel Data Analysis

Contingency management reduces symptoms of psychological and emotional distress among homeless, substance-dependent men who have sex with men

Best-practice prevention alone or with conventional or biological caries management for 3- to 7-year-olds: the FiCTION three-arm RCT

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About