Notice: On March 31, it was **announced** that Statalist is moving from an email list to a **forum**. The old list will shut down on April 23, and its replacement, **statalist.org** is already up and running.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

From |
Rebecca Pope <rebecca.a.pope@gmail.com> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: combining tables |

Date |
Tue, 6 Nov 2012 11:20:45 -0600 |

Thanks again to Nick, Daniel K., and Roger for Stata suggestions. Here is a summary of my experience with your proposed solutions. It is pretty dense, but I've tried to be comprehensive in case anyone else runs into a similar situation since I would say on balance that all approaches had their relative strengths & weaknesses that different users might weight differently than I do. Nick, you were right about -tabout- coming closest to what I want to accomplish in terms of a single command. Particular strengths in my context are the ability to have it treat the list of supplied variables as -tab1- would, rather than producing cross-tabulations or grouping over all possible combinations of the variables in the list. This was the problem I ran into with -collapse-. The survey extensions are also very helpful and, while not applicable in this particular context, often are in my work. If I'm working with strictly categorical variables, this would be my command of choice. The limitation that I have encountered is that I cannot combine continuous and categorical variables into one table with mean (sd) for continuous & N (%) for categorical. For an example, see Table 1 of Pyne et al's How Bad is Depression? Available at <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2739035/pdf/hesr0044-1406.pdf>, which is a good representation of the sort of table I routinely make (I can't claim credit for this one, but it is from my group & freely accessible). Next, to Daniel Klein's suggestion about -outreg-. Yes, I know about John Gallup's -outreg-, but I have almost exclusively used Ben Jann's -estout- for regression output (Jann B. (2005) Making regression tables from stored estimates. Stata Journal 5(3): 288–308). I'm not going to make any claims about one's superiority over the other, just the relative benefits of familiarity. However, the suggestion about -outreg-'s extended capabilities prompted me to look a little closer to home and think more creatively about using -estout- since I'm more familiar with it. This worked moderately well. The ability to set numeric formats cell-by-cell is especially nice. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, you also lose a lot of options when your matrix is user-created rather than by Stata-stored estimation results. For example, it does not appear that you can add parentheses or place one element under another. All I can say for certain is that I couldn't when I tried. After this immediate project, I'll look closer at -outreg- and potentially writing a program that saves the matrix in r(), which if I'm reading the -estout- documentation correctly should restore some of the functionality. Then there is the suite of commands that appear in Roger's article... If I'd known what I was getting into, I would have waited on this past my present project too, but once started, I was too stubborn to stop. The level of control is pretty spectacular and it seems, thus far, that the main limitations of Roger's approach are the user's & RTF capabilities (for those who must work in MS Word, etc). Depending on the the user, this could be quite significant. Two days of trial and error and another full day spent on many additional readings and I _finally_ managed to get the RTF output to work correctly. In fairness, Roger's article does disclose this: "RTF tables are less simple to produce..." I have a much greater appreciation now for the commands that do this automatically. In the end though, I wound up with a table that only requires right indents for the data columns, the addition of top & bottom borders, and an empty row (personal preference) above each "gap row" (see -gaprow- in Roger's article). This is substantially less formatting than I did before, so I'm quite happy. Still, I'd say the initial time investment to understand all the intermediate steps was quite high & creating the "resultssets" is going to require project-specific code rather than invoking a single command. Given the time that it takes to paste in values & format tables (especially large ones) in Word, I nevertheless think it is worth it. Once again, thank you to all. I've learned a lot from this exercise. Regards, Rebecca On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Rebecca Pope <rebecca.a.pope@gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you to everyone who has responded. I am reviewing all of the > commands/packages that were suggested. There is a lot to sort through, > but in the interim, I didn't want you to think I was being ungrateful > & ignoring your replies. > > Regards, > Rebecca > > > > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Airey, David C > <david.airey@vanderbilt.edu> wrote: >> >> . >> >> http://www2.sas.com/proceedings/sugi30/258-30.pdf >> >> is relevant for the TPL, err Klingon, curious. >> >> >> * >> * 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/ * * 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/

**References**:**Re: st: combining tables***From:*"Airey, David C" <david.airey@vanderbilt.edu>

**Re: st: combining tables***From:*Rebecca Pope <rebecca.a.pope@gmail.com>

- Prev by Date:
**RE: st: format %w.dg** - Next by Date:
**st: Label categorical axis of - graph box - with dates** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: combining tables** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: access coefficients from another regression** - Index(es):