These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

920 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16708349)

  • 1. A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: a Monte Carlo study.
    Austin PC; Grootendorst P; Anderson GM
    Stat Med; 2007 Feb; 26(4):734-53. PubMed ID: 16708349
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Some methods of propensity-score matching had superior performance to others: results of an empirical investigation and Monte Carlo simulations.
    Austin PC
    Biom J; 2009 Feb; 51(1):171-84. PubMed ID: 19197955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The performance of different propensity-score methods for estimating relative risks.
    Austin PC
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Jun; 61(6):537-45. PubMed ID: 18471657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of the ability of double-robust estimators to correct bias in propensity score matching analysis. A Monte Carlo simulation study.
    Nguyen TL; Collins GS; Spence J; Devereaux PJ; Daurès JP; Landais P; Le Manach Y
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2017 Dec; 26(12):1513-1519. PubMed ID: 28984050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Conditioning on the propensity score can result in biased estimation of common measures of treatment effect: a Monte Carlo study.
    Austin PC; Grootendorst P; Normand SL; Anderson GM
    Stat Med; 2007 Feb; 26(4):754-68. PubMed ID: 16783757
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The relative ability of different propensity score methods to balance measured covariates between treated and untreated subjects in observational studies.
    Austin PC
    Med Decis Making; 2009; 29(6):661-77. PubMed ID: 19684288
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Statistical criteria for selecting the optimal number of untreated subjects matched to each treated subject when using many-to-one matching on the propensity score.
    Austin PC
    Am J Epidemiol; 2010 Nov; 172(9):1092-7. PubMed ID: 20802241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Type I error rates, coverage of confidence intervals, and variance estimation in propensity-score matched analyses.
    Austin PC
    Int J Biostat; 2009 Apr; 5(1):Article 13. PubMed ID: 20949126
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Developing and Applying the Propensity Score to Make Causal Inferences: Variable Selection and Stratification.
    Adelson JL; McCoach DB; Rogers HJ; Adelson JA; Sauer TM
    Front Psychol; 2017; 8():1413. PubMed ID: 28861028
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Magnitude and direction of missing confounders had different consequences on treatment effect estimation in propensity score analysis.
    Nguyen TL; Collins GS; Spence J; Fontaine C; Daurès JP; Devereaux PJ; Landais P; Le Manach Y
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2017 Jul; 87():87-97. PubMed ID: 28412467
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A critical appraisal of propensity-score matching in the medical literature between 1996 and 2003.
    Austin PC
    Stat Med; 2008 May; 27(12):2037-49. PubMed ID: 18038446
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios.
    Austin PC
    Stat Med; 2007 Jul; 26(16):3078-94. PubMed ID: 17187347
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Goodness-of-fit diagnostics for the propensity score model when estimating treatment effects using covariate adjustment with the propensity score.
    Austin PC
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2008 Dec; 17(12):1202-17. PubMed ID: 18972454
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Double-adjustment in propensity score matching analysis: choosing a threshold for considering residual imbalance.
    Nguyen TL; Collins GS; Spence J; Daurès JP; Devereaux PJ; Landais P; Le Manach Y
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Apr; 17(1):78. PubMed ID: 28454568
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal hazard ratios.
    Austin PC
    Stat Med; 2013 Jul; 32(16):2837-49. PubMed ID: 23239115
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Genetic matching for time-dependent treatments: a longitudinal extension and simulation study.
    Weymann D; Chan B; Regier DA
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2023 Aug; 23(1):181. PubMed ID: 37559105
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Minimizing confounding in comparative observational studies with time-to-event outcomes: An extensive comparison of covariate balancing methods using Monte Carlo simulation.
    Cafri G; Fortin S; Austin PC
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2024 Aug; 33(8):1437-1460. PubMed ID: 39053570
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A comparison of 12 algorithms for matching on the propensity score.
    Austin PC
    Stat Med; 2014 Mar; 33(6):1057-69. PubMed ID: 24123228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Double propensity-score adjustment: A solution to design bias or bias due to incomplete matching.
    Austin PC
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2017 Feb; 26(1):201-222. PubMed ID: 25038071
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The performance of inverse probability of treatment weighting and full matching on the propensity score in the presence of model misspecification when estimating the effect of treatment on survival outcomes.
    Austin PC; Stuart EA
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2017 Aug; 26(4):1654-1670. PubMed ID: 25934643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 46.