Re: st: Problem with estout and rename

[Nick Cox <njcoxstata@gmail.com>]

Much in this territory depends on tribal habits and traditional
rituals and the usual advice in such matters is for outsiders to keep
quiet and adopt a benign neutral expression.

However, it strikes me that with many models and many predictors,
showing which predictors are included, or significant at some level,
or otherwise notable, calls for a graph as well as a table. I did say
"as well as", although sometimes I would go further.

Indeed this is an old idea.

stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/dodhia.pdf

is one accessible argument in this vein.

Nick

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Cory Smith <corybsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Rebecca,
>
> Thanks for your concern about the clarity of the piece. In general, I
> think the merge aspect of the rename() function comes in handy when
> there are different ways to measure or proxy for the same variable. To
> give a crude simplification in my case, I am looking at how disease in
> location A predicts disease in location B. But, since it takes time
> for disease to spread across space, maybe I should look at the disease
> in A from one month ago (i.e. a lag).
>
> In a big table with 8+ regressions, it will be easier for a reader
> just to scan one line to determine how many models show such a
> relationship (rather than having to bounce across two lines depending
> on whether there is a lag or not). Other lines in the table and the
> text in the paper will make clear which measures are used in a given
> regression.
*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
*   http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/resources/statalist-faq/
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/