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)

  • 21. Invited commentary: variable selection versus shrinkage in the control of multiple confounders.
    Greenland S
    Am J Epidemiol; 2008 Mar; 167(5):523-9; discussion 530-1. PubMed ID: 18227100
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Reasons for caution when evaluating health care interventions using non-randomised study designs.
    Reeves BC
    Forsch Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd; 2004 Aug; 11 Suppl 1():40-5. PubMed ID: 15353902
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Quantifying the potential role of unmeasured confounders: the example of influenza vaccination.
    Groenwold RH; Hoes AW; Nichol KL; Hak E
    Int J Epidemiol; 2008 Dec; 37(6):1422-9. PubMed ID: 18725358
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. Overcoming ecologic bias using the two-phase study design.
    Wakefield J; Haneuse SJ
    Am J Epidemiol; 2008 Apr; 167(8):908-16. PubMed ID: 18270370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. The sign of the unmeasured confounding bias under various standard populations.
    Chiba Y
    Biom J; 2009 Aug; 51(4):670-6. PubMed ID: 19650054
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. How statistics can be used to promote better health care.
    Sinclair J
    Nurs Times; 1999 Jun 23-29; 95(25):44-6. PubMed ID: 10497591
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. Assessing the validity of clinical trials.
    Akobeng AK
    J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr; 2008 Sep; 47(3):277-82. PubMed ID: 18728521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Assessment of risk of bias in randomized clinical trials in surgery.
    Gurusamy KS; Gluud C; Nikolova D; Davidson BR
    Br J Surg; 2009 Apr; 96(4):342-9. PubMed ID: 19283747
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Causal conclusions are most sensitive to unobserved binary covariates.
    Wang L; Krieger AM
    Stat Med; 2006 Jul; 25(13):2257-71. PubMed ID: 16220480
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. Measuring balance and model selection in propensity score methods.
    Belitser SV; Martens EP; Pestman WR; Groenwold RH; de Boer A; Klungel OH
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2011 Nov; 20(11):1115-29. PubMed ID: 21805529
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Simulations showed that validation of database-derived diagnostic criteria based on a small subsample reduced bias.
    Abrahamowicz M; Xiao Y; Ionescu-Ittu R; Lacaille D
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2007 Jun; 60(6):600-9. PubMed ID: 17493519
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. The concept of the marginally matched subject in propensity-score matched analyses.
    Austin PC; Lee DS
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2009 Jun; 18(6):469-82. PubMed ID: 19319923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Confounding in genetic association studies and its solutions.
    Hu D; Ziv E
    Methods Mol Biol; 2008; 448():31-9. PubMed ID: 18370229
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. On the estimation and use of propensity scores in case-control and case-cohort studies.
    Månsson R; Joffe MM; Sun W; Hennessy S
    Am J Epidemiol; 2007 Aug; 166(3):332-9. PubMed ID: 17504780
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Endogeneity bias in the absence of unobserved heterogeneity.
    Berg GD; Mansley EC
    Ann Epidemiol; 2004 Sep; 14(8):561-5. PubMed ID: 15350955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Assessment and control of confounding in trauma research.
    Kurth T; Sonis J
    J Trauma Stress; 2007 Oct; 20(5):807-20. PubMed ID: 17955531
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 20.