Table 1

Error analysis using Anaissie et al. data

≈ c










≈ d
0.0
 0.1
 0.2
 0.3
 0.4
 0.7
 0.9
 1.2
 1.5
 1.7
 2.0
1.0
 -.286
 -.272
 -.259
 -.245
 -.232
 -.197
 -.162
 -.128
 -.096
 -.064
 .033
1.7
 -.198
 -.186
 -.175
 -.163
 -.152
 -.122
 -.093
 -.064
 -.036
 -.009
 .018
2.4
 -.131
 -.121
 -.111
 -.101
 -.091
 -.065
 -.039
 -.014
 .011
 .035
 .059
3.0
 -.077
 -.068
 -.059
 -.050
 -.041
 -.018
 .005
 .028
 .050
 .072
 .093
3.7
 -.032
 -.024
 -.016
 -.008
.021
 .042
 .063
 .083
 .103
 .123
5.6
 .062
 .069
 .075
 .082
 .089
 .106
 .123
 .140
 .156
 .173
 .189
7.5
 .131
 .136
 .142
 .147
 .153
 .168
 .182
 .196
 .211
 .225
 .238
9.4
 .183
 .188
 .193
 .198
 .203
.229
 .241
 .254
 .266
 .278
11.2
 .226
 .231
 .235
 .239
 .244
 .255
 .267
 .278
 .289
 .300
 .311
13.1
 .262
 .266
 .270
 .274
 .278
 .288
 .299
 .309
 .319
 .329
 .339
15.0
 .293
 .296
 .300
 .303
 .307
 .317
 .326
 .335
 .345
 .354
 .363

Hozo et al. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2005 5:17   doi:10.1186/1471-2288-5-17