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 *

255 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21805529)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Propensity score balance measures in pharmacoepidemiology: a simulation study.
    Ali MS; Groenwold RH; Pestman WR; Belitser SV; Roes KC; Hoes AW; de Boer A; Klungel OH
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2014 Aug; 23(8):802-11. PubMed ID: 24478163
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Balance measures for propensity score methods: a clinical example on beta-agonist use and the risk of myocardial infarction.
    Groenwold RH; de Vries F; de Boer A; Pestman WR; Rutten FH; Hoes AW; Klungel OH
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2011 Nov; 20(11):1130-7. PubMed ID: 21953948
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Metrics for covariate balance in cohort studies of causal effects.
    Franklin JM; Rassen JA; Ackermann D; Bartels DB; Schneeweiss S
    Stat Med; 2014 May; 33(10):1685-99. PubMed ID: 24323618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A new weighted balance measure helped to select the variables to be included in a propensity score model.
    Caruana E; Chevret S; Resche-Rigon M; Pirracchio R
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 Dec; 68(12):1415-22.e2. PubMed ID: 26050059
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Confounder-adjusted estimates of the risk difference using propensity score-based weighting.
    Ukoumunne OC; Williamson E; Forbes AB; Gulliford MC; Carlin JB
    Stat Med; 2010 Dec; 29(30):3126-36. PubMed ID: 21170907
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The performance of different propensity-score methods for estimating relative risks.
    Austin PC
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Jun; 61(6):537-45. PubMed ID: 18471657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Too much ado about propensity score models? Comparing methods of propensity score matching.
    Baser O
    Value Health; 2006; 9(6):377-85. PubMed ID: 17076868
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Weaknesses of goodness-of-fit tests for evaluating propensity score models: the case of the omitted confounder.
    Weitzen S; Lapane KL; Toledano AY; Hume AL; Mor V
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2005 Apr; 14(4):227-38. PubMed ID: 15386700
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Prognostic score-based balance measures can be a useful diagnostic for propensity score methods in comparative effectiveness research.
    Stuart EA; Lee BK; Leacy FP
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2013 Aug; 66(8 Suppl):S84-S90.e1. PubMed ID: 23849158
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. One-to-many propensity score matching in cohort studies.
    Rassen JA; Shelat AA; Myers J; Glynn RJ; Rothman KJ; Schneeweiss S
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2012 May; 21 Suppl 2():69-80. PubMed ID: 22552982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparing treatment effects after adjustment with multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression and propensity score methods.
    Martens EP; de Boer A; Pestman WR; Belitser SV; Stricker BH; Klungel OH
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2008 Jan; 17(1):1-8. PubMed ID: 17960554
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Assessing balance in measured baseline covariates when using many-to-one matching on the propensity-score.
    Austin PC
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2008 Dec; 17(12):1218-25. PubMed ID: 18972455
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Variable selection for propensity score estimation via balancing covariates.
    Zhu Y; Schonbach M; Coffman DL; Williams JS
    Epidemiology; 2015 Mar; 26(2):e14-5. PubMed ID: 25643109
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.