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.
3. 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]
4. Matching by propensity score in cohort studies with three treatment groups. Rassen JA; Shelat AA; Franklin JM; Glynn RJ; Solomon DH; Schneeweiss S Epidemiology; 2013 May; 24(3):401-9. PubMed ID: 23532053 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The use of propensity scores and observational data to estimate randomized controlled trial generalizability bias. Pressler TR; Kaizar EE Stat Med; 2013 Sep; 32(20):3552-68. PubMed ID: 23553373 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Randomization, matching, and propensity scores in the design and analysis of experimental studies with measured baseline covariates. Loux TM Stat Med; 2015 Feb; 34(4):558-70. PubMed ID: 25384851 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. When should matching be used in the design of cluster randomized trials? Chondros P; Ukoumunne OC; Gunn JM; Carlin JB Stat Med; 2021 Nov; 40(26):5765-5778. PubMed ID: 34390264 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: a Monte Carlo study. Austin PC; Grootendorst P; Anderson GM Stat Med; 2007 Feb; 26(4):734-53. PubMed ID: 16708349 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. External control arm analysis: an evaluation of propensity score approaches, G-computation, and doubly debiased machine learning. Loiseau N; Trichelair P; He M; Andreux M; Zaslavskiy M; Wainrib G; Blum MGB BMC Med Res Methodol; 2022 Dec; 22(1):335. PubMed ID: 36577946 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Controlling for confounding via propensity score methods can result in biased estimation of the conditional AUC: A simulation study. Galadima HI; McClish DK Pharm Stat; 2019 Oct; 18(5):568-582. PubMed ID: 31111682 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Should a propensity score model be super? The utility of ensemble procedures for causal adjustment. Alam S; Moodie EEM; Stephens DA Stat Med; 2019 Apr; 38(9):1690-1702. PubMed ID: 30586681 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparison of the ability of double-robust estimators to correct bias in propensity score matching analysis. A Monte Carlo simulation study. Nguyen TL; Collins GS; Spence J; Devereaux PJ; Daurès JP; Landais P; Le Manach Y Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2017 Dec; 26(12):1513-1519. PubMed ID: 28984050 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Improving causal inference with a doubly robust estimator that combines propensity score stratification and weighting. Linden A J Eval Clin Pract; 2017 Aug; 23(4):697-702. PubMed ID: 28116816 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Propensity Score: an Alternative Method of Analyzing Treatment Effects. Kuss O; Blettner M; Börgermann J Dtsch Arztebl Int; 2016 Sep; 113(35-36):597-603. PubMed ID: 27658473 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Estimating the causal effect of randomization versus treatment preference in a doubly randomized preference trial. Marcus SM; Stuart EA; Wang P; Shadish WR; Steiner PM Psychol Methods; 2012 Jun; 17(2):244-54. PubMed ID: 22563844 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]