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 *

129 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18690860)

  • 1. Clinical trials: how to assess confounding and why so.
    Cleophas TJ; Zwinderman AH
    Curr Clin Pharmacol; 2007 May; 2(2):129-33. PubMed ID: 18690860
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Clinical trials: odds ratios and multiple regression models--why and how to assess them.
    Sobh M; Cleophas TJ; Hadj-Chaib A; Zwinderman AH
    Am J Ther; 2008; 15(1):44-52. PubMed ID: 18223353
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Can statistic adjustment of OR minimize the potential confounding bias for meta-analysis of case-control study? A secondary data analysis.
    Liu T; Nie X; Wu Z; Zhang Y; Feng G; Cai S; Lv Y; Peng X
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Dec; 17(1):179. PubMed ID: 29284414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Logistic regression was preferred to estimate risk differences and numbers needed to be exposed adjusted for covariates.
    Gehrmann U; Kuss O; Wellmann J; Bender R
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2010 Nov; 63(11):1223-31. PubMed ID: 20430578
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Impact of the 1990 Hong Kong legislation for restriction on sulfur content in fuel.
    Wong CM; Rabl A; Thach TQ; Chau YK; Chan KP; Cowling BJ; Lai HK; Lam TH; McGhee SM; Anderson HR; Hedley AJ
    Res Rep Health Eff Inst; 2012 Aug; (170):5-91. PubMed ID: 23316618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Calculating the "number needed to be exposed" with adjustment for confounding variables in epidemiological studies.
    Bender R; Blettner M
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2002 May; 55(5):525-30. PubMed ID: 12007557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Studies with many covariates and few outcomes: selecting covariates and implementing propensity-score-based confounding adjustments.
    Patorno E; Glynn RJ; Hernández-Díaz S; Liu J; Schneeweiss S
    Epidemiology; 2014 Mar; 25(2):268-78. PubMed ID: 24487209
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [Unbiased estimation of factorial effect by using analysis of covariance or propensity score method for observational studies in laboratory medicine].
    Inada M
    Rinsho Byori; 2012 Jul; 60(7):689-97. PubMed ID: 22973732
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Propensity Score Methods: Theory and Practice for Anesthesia Research.
    Schulte PJ; Mascha EJ
    Anesth Analg; 2018 Oct; 127(4):1074-1084. PubMed ID: 29750691
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group.
    D'Agostino RB
    Stat Med; 1998 Oct; 17(19):2265-81. PubMed ID: 9802183
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Response to letter to the editor from Dr Rahman Shiri: The challenging topic of suicide across occupational groups.
    Niedhammer I; Milner A; Witt K; Klingelschmidt J; Khireddine-Medouni I; Alexopoulos EC; Toivanen S; Chastang JF; LaMontagne AD
    Scand J Work Environ Health; 2018 Jan; 44(1):108-110. PubMed ID: 29218357
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Propensity score methods gave similar results to traditional regression modeling in observational studies: a systematic review.
    Shah BR; Laupacis A; Hux JE; Austin PC
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2005 Jun; 58(6):550-9. PubMed ID: 15878468
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Performance of disease risk scores, propensity scores, and traditional multivariable outcome regression in the presence of multiple confounders.
    Arbogast PG; Ray WA
    Am J Epidemiol; 2011 Sep; 174(5):613-20. PubMed ID: 21749976
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Correction of confounding bias in non-randomized studies by appropriate weighting.
    Schmoor C; Gall C; Stampf S; Graf E
    Biom J; 2011 Mar; 53(2):369-87. PubMed ID: 21308726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparison of logistic regression versus propensity score when the number of events is low and there are multiple confounders.
    Cepeda MS; Boston R; Farrar JT; Strom BL
    Am J Epidemiol; 2003 Aug; 158(3):280-7. PubMed ID: 12882951
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. [Propensity score methods for creating covariate balance in observational studies].
    Pattanayak CW; Rubin DB; Zell ER
    Rev Esp Cardiol; 2011 Oct; 64(10):897-903. PubMed ID: 21872981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Model misspecification and robustness in causal inference: comparing matching with doubly robust estimation.
    Waernbaum I
    Stat Med; 2012 Jul; 31(15):1572-81. PubMed ID: 22359267
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Sample size determination under an exponential model in the presence of a confounder and type I censoring.
    Lui KJ
    Control Clin Trials; 1992 Dec; 13(6):446-58. PubMed ID: 1334817
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.