394 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]
