Bookmark and Share

Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at

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

st: question about "atmeans" vs. "asbalanced"

From   "Visintainer, Paul" <>
To   "''" <>
Subject   st: question about "atmeans" vs. "asbalanced"
Date   Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:38:04 -0500

The command -margins- provides two approaches for adjusting means: "atmeans" and "asbalanced". (I know SAS coined the phrase "least-squares means" and that "asbalanced" provides l-s means.)  Usually the results are close, but I suppose they don't have to be.  Is one approach preferred (or expected) over another?  When presenting "adjusted" means in a manuscript, am I implying the use of one method more than the other?  

Any suggestions would be helpful.


Paul F. Visintainer, PhD

Please view our annual report at

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged information for the use of the designated recipients named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of it or its contents is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please reply to the sender immediately or by telephone at 413-794-0000 and destroy all copies of this communication and any attachments. For further information regarding Baystate Health's privacy policy, please visit our Internet site at

*   For searches and help try:

© Copyright 1996–2018 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   Site index