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 *

389 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18619797)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Methods to assess intended effects of drug treatment in observational studies are reviewed.
    Klungel OH; Martens EP; Psaty BM; Grobbee DE; Sullivan SD; Stricker BH; Leufkens HG; de Boer A
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2004 Dec; 57(12):1223-31. PubMed ID: 15617947
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. An application of propensity score matching using claims data.
    Seeger JD; Williams PL; Walker AM
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2005 Jul; 14(7):465-76. PubMed ID: 15651087
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Epidemiologic studies: pitfalls in interpretation.
    Westhoff CL
    Dialogues Contracept; 1995; 4(5):5-6, 8. PubMed ID: 12288680
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A sensitivity analysis using information about measured confounders yielded improved uncertainty assessments for unmeasured confounding.
    McCandless LC; Gustafson P; Levy AR
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Mar; 61(3):247-55. PubMed ID: 18226747
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Methods to adjust for bias and confounding in critical care health services research involving observational data.
    Wunsch H; Linde-Zwirble WT; Angus DC
    J Crit Care; 2006 Mar; 21(1):1-7. PubMed ID: 16616616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. An overview of the objectives of and the approaches to propensity score analyses.
    Heinze G; Jüni P
    Eur Heart J; 2011 Jul; 32(14):1704-8. PubMed ID: 21362706
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [Interpretation of epidemiologic studies. Type of study, elements of bias, causality].
    Touzet S; Colin C
    Rev Prat; 1999 Oct; 49(16):1797-804. PubMed ID: 10578612
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Practical application of nonrandomized research to patient care: a case study of nesiritide.
    Winegardner ML; Reaume KT; Dabaja GS; Kalus JS
    Pharmacotherapy; 2007 Jan; 27(1):143-51. PubMed ID: 17192168
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Bias.
    Delgado-Rodríguez M; Llorca J
    J Epidemiol Community Health; 2004 Aug; 58(8):635-41. PubMed ID: 15252064
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Systematic reviews incorporating evidence from nonrandomized study designs: reasons for caution when estimating health effects.
    Reeves BC; van Binsbergen J; van Weel C
    Eur J Clin Nutr; 2005 Aug; 59 Suppl 1():S155-61. PubMed ID: 16052184
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. New strategies are needed to improve the accuracy of influenza vaccine effectiveness estimates among seniors.
    Nelson JC; Jackson ML; Weiss NS; Jackson LA
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Jul; 62(7):687-94. PubMed ID: 19124221
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Pooling of confounders did not induce residual confounding in influenza vaccination studies.
    Groenwold RH; Hak E; Hoes AW
    Ann Epidemiol; 2009 Jun; 19(6):432-6. PubMed ID: 19460673
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Bayesian perspectives for epidemiologic research: III. Bias analysis via missing-data methods.
    Greenland S
    Int J Epidemiol; 2009 Dec; 38(6):1662-73. PubMed ID: 19744933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [Roaming through methodology. XIII. Matching as a rule is not useful].
    Verbeek AL
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1999 May; 143(20):1037-40. PubMed ID: 10368730
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Confounding in evaluating the effectiveness of influenza vaccine.
    Mori M; Oura A; Ohnishi H; Washio M
    Vaccine; 2008 Nov; 26(50):6459-61. PubMed ID: 18573295
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Systematic differences in treatment effect estimates between propensity score methods and logistic regression.
    Martens EP; Pestman WR; de Boer A; Belitser SV; Klungel OH
    Int J Epidemiol; 2008 Oct; 37(5):1142-7. PubMed ID: 18453634
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Improving participant selection in disease management programmes: insights gained from propensity score stratification.
    Linden A; Adams JL
    J Eval Clin Pract; 2008 Oct; 14(5):914-8. PubMed ID: 19018926
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Weighted nonparametric maximum likelihood estimate of a mixing distribution in nonrandomized clinical trials.
    Liu C; Xie J; Zhang Y
    Stat Med; 2007 Dec; 26(29):5303-19. PubMed ID: 17497612
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A primer in epidemiologic methodology.
    Weigler BJ
    Comp Med; 2001 Jun; 51(3):208-17. PubMed ID: 11924774
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 20.