938 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21495062)
1. Two-stage instrumental variable methods for estimating the causal odds ratio: analysis of bias.
Cai B; Small DS; Have TR
Stat Med; 2011 Jul; 30(15):1809-24. PubMed ID: 21495062
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Bias in estimating the causal hazard ratio when using two-stage instrumental variable methods.
Wan F; Small D; Bekelman JE; Mitra N
Stat Med; 2015 Jun; 34(14):2235-65. PubMed ID: 25800789
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Simulation study of instrumental variable approaches with an application to a study of the antidiabetic effect of bezafibrate.
Cai B; Hennessy S; Flory JH; Sha D; Ten Have TR; Small DS
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2012 May; 21 Suppl 2():114-20. PubMed ID: 22552986
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A general approach to evaluating the bias of 2-stage instrumental variable estimators.
Wan F; Small D; Mitra N
Stat Med; 2018 May; 37(12):1997-2015. PubMed ID: 29572890
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Bias analysis of the instrumental variable estimator as an estimator of the average causal effect.
Chiba Y
Contemp Clin Trials; 2010 Jan; 31(1):12-7. PubMed ID: 19879376
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. On a preference-based instrumental variable approach in reducing unmeasured confounding-by-indication.
Li Y; Lee Y; Wolfe RA; Morgenstern H; Zhang J; Port FK; Robinson BM
Stat Med; 2015 Mar; 34(7):1150-68. PubMed ID: 25546152
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Prior event rate ratio adjustment: numerical studies of a statistical method to address unrecognized confounding in observational studies.
Yu M; Xie D; Wang X; Weiner MG; Tannen RL
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2012 May; 21 Suppl 2():60-8. PubMed ID: 22552981
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Simple efficient bias corrected instrumental variable estimator for randomized trials with noncompliance.
Chan KC
Contemp Clin Trials; 2012 Jul; 33(4):786-93. PubMed ID: 22484340
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. Bias Formulas for Estimating Direct and Indirect Effects When Unmeasured Confounding Is Present.
le Cessie S
Epidemiology; 2016 Jan; 27(1):125-32. PubMed ID: 26426943
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Interpreting treatment-effect estimates with heterogeneity and choice: simulation model results.
Brooks JM; Fang G
Clin Ther; 2009 Apr; 31(4):902-19. PubMed ID: 19446162
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparing the performance of two-stage residual inclusion methods when using physician's prescribing preference as an instrumental variable: unmeasured confounding and noncollapsibility.
Zhang L; Lewsey J
J Comp Eff Res; 2024 May; 13(5):e230085. PubMed ID: 38567965
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Methods to apply probabilistic bias analysis to summary estimates of association.
Lash TL; Schmidt M; Jensen AØ; Engebjerg MC
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2010 Jun; 19(6):638-44. PubMed ID: 20535760
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. On the causal structure of information bias and confounding bias in randomized trials.
Shahar E; Shahar DJ
J Eval Clin Pract; 2009 Dec; 15(6):1214-6. PubMed ID: 20367730
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Conditioning on the propensity score can result in biased estimation of common measures of treatment effect: a Monte Carlo study.
Austin PC; Grootendorst P; Normand SL; Anderson GM
Stat Med; 2007 Feb; 26(4):754-68. PubMed ID: 16783757
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Risk factors, confounding, and the illusion of statistical control.
Christenfeld NJ; Sloan RP; Carroll D; Greenland S
Psychosom Med; 2004; 66(6):868-75. PubMed ID: 15564351
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
