209 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17066378)
1. Biased odds ratios from dichotomization of age.
Chen H; Cohen P; Chen S
Stat Med; 2007 Aug; 26(18):3487-97. PubMed ID: 17066378
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Odds ratios for a continuous outcome variable without dichotomizing.
Moser BK; Coombs LP
Stat Med; 2004 Jun; 23(12):1843-60. PubMed ID: 15195319
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Epidemiologic studies: pitfalls in interpretation.
Westhoff CL
Dialogues Contracept; 1995; 4(5):5-6, 8. PubMed ID: 12288680
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Simple formulas for gauging the potential impacts of population stratification bias.
Lee WC; Wang LY
Am J Epidemiol; 2008 Jan; 167(1):86-9. PubMed ID: 17881384
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Effects of long-term exposure to traffic-related air pollution on respiratory and cardiovascular mortality in the Netherlands: the NLCS-AIR study.
Brunekreef B; Beelen R; Hoek G; Schouten L; Bausch-Goldbohm S; Fischer P; Armstrong B; Hughes E; Jerrett M; van den Brandt P
Res Rep Health Eff Inst; 2009 Mar; (139):5-71; discussion 73-89. PubMed ID: 19554969
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Using generalized additive models to reduce residual confounding.
Benedetti A; Abrahamowicz M
Stat Med; 2004 Dec; 23(24):3781-801. PubMed ID: 15580601
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Bias formulas for external adjustment and sensitivity analysis of unmeasured confounders.
Arah OA; Chiba Y; Greenland S
Ann Epidemiol; 2008 Aug; 18(8):637-46. PubMed ID: 18652982
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Quantitative assessment of unobserved confounding is mandatory in nonrandomized intervention studies.
Groenwold RH; Hak E; Hoes AW
J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Jan; 62(1):22-8. PubMed ID: 18619797
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Inflation of the type I error rate when a continuous confounding variable is categorized in logistic regression analyses.
Austin PC; Brunner LJ
Stat Med; 2004 Apr; 23(7):1159-78. PubMed ID: 15057884
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Adjusting for bias and unmeasured confounding in Mendelian randomization studies with binary responses.
Palmer TM; Thompson JR; Tobin MD; Sheehan NA; Burton PR
Int J Epidemiol; 2008 Oct; 37(5):1161-8. PubMed ID: 18463132
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The relative merits of risk ratios and odds ratios.
Cummings P
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med; 2009 May; 163(5):438-45. PubMed ID: 19414690
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Use of conditional and marginal odds-ratios for analysing familial aggregation of binary data.
FitzGerald PE; Knuiman MW
Genet Epidemiol; 2000 Mar; 18(3):193-202. PubMed ID: 10723105
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A note on dichotomization of continuous response variable in the presence of contamination and model misspecification.
Shentu Y; Xie M
Stat Med; 2010 Sep; 29(21):2200-14. PubMed ID: 20812301
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Effect of formal statistical significance on the credibility of observational associations.
Ioannidis JP
Am J Epidemiol; 2008 Aug; 168(4):374-83; discussion 384-90. PubMed ID: 18611956
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Confounding of indirect effects: a sensitivity analysis exploring the range of bias due to a cause common to both the mediator and the outcome.
Hafeman DM
Am J Epidemiol; 2011 Sep; 174(6):710-7. PubMed ID: 21652602
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Quantification of bias in direct effects estimates due to different types of measurement error in the mediator.
le Cessie S; Debeij J; Rosendaal FR; Cannegieter SC; Vandenbroucke JP
Epidemiology; 2012 Jul; 23(4):551-60. PubMed ID: 22526092
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Instrumental variables: application and limitations.
Martens EP; Pestman WR; de Boer A; Belitser SV; Klungel OH
Epidemiology; 2006 May; 17(3):260-7. PubMed ID: 16617274
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Oral contraceptives and the risk of myocardial infarction.
Kahlenborn C
N Engl J Med; 2002 Jun; 346(23):1826-9; author reply 1826-9. PubMed ID: 12051264
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Adjusting for selection bias in retrospective, case-control studies.
Geneletti S; Richardson S; Best N
Biostatistics; 2009 Jan; 10(1):17-31. PubMed ID: 18482997
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
