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 *

284 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22025356)

  • 1. Effects of adjusting for instrumental variables on bias and precision of effect estimates.
    Myers JA; Rassen JA; Gagne JJ; Huybrechts KF; Schneeweiss S; Rothman KJ; Joffe MM; Glynn RJ
    Am J Epidemiol; 2011 Dec; 174(11):1213-22. PubMed ID: 22025356
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Bias amplification in the g-computation algorithm for time-varying treatments: a case study of industry payments and prescription of opioid products.
    Inoue K; Goto A; Kondo N; Shinozaki T
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2022 Apr; 22(1):120. PubMed ID: 35468735
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Performance of instrumental variable methods in cohort and nested case-control studies: a simulation study.
    Uddin MJ; Groenwold RH; de Boer A; Belitser SV; Roes KC; Hoes AW; Klungel OH
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2014 Feb; 23(2):165-77. PubMed ID: 24306965
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The impact of unmeasured within- and between-cluster confounding on the bias of effect estimatorsof a continuous exposure.
    Li Y; Lee Y; Port FK; Robinson BM
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2020 Aug; 29(8):2119-2139. PubMed ID: 31694489
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Implications of M bias in epidemiologic studies: a simulation study.
    Liu W; Brookhart MA; Schneeweiss S; Mi X; Setoguchi S
    Am J Epidemiol; 2012 Nov; 176(10):938-48. PubMed ID: 23100247
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Assessing causal treatment effect estimation when using large observational datasets.
    John ER; Abrams KR; Brightling CE; Sheehan NA
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Nov; 19(1):207. PubMed ID: 31726969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The impact of residual and unmeasured confounding in epidemiologic studies: a simulation study.
    Fewell Z; Davey Smith G; Sterne JA
    Am J Epidemiol; 2007 Sep; 166(6):646-55. PubMed ID: 17615092
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Time dependent hazard ratio estimation using instrumental variables without conditioning on an omitted covariate.
    MacKenzie TA; Martinez-Camblor P; O'Malley AJ
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 Mar; 21(1):56. PubMed ID: 33743583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. The impact of moderator by confounder interactions in the assessment of treatment effect modification: a simulation study.
    Marsden AM; Dixon WG; Dunn G; Emsley R
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2022 Apr; 22(1):88. PubMed ID: 35369866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. On the use and misuse of scalar scores of confounders in design and analysis of observational studies.
    Pfeiffer RM; Riedl R
    Stat Med; 2015 Aug; 34(18):2618-35. PubMed ID: 25781579
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Comparison of instrumental variable methods with continuous exposure and binary outcome: A simulation study.
    Orihara S; Goto A
    J Epidemiol; 2024 Apr; ():. PubMed ID: 38644194
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Variable selection for propensity score models.
    Brookhart MA; Schneeweiss S; Rothman KJ; Glynn RJ; Avorn J; Stürmer T
    Am J Epidemiol; 2006 Jun; 163(12):1149-56. PubMed ID: 16624967
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Instrumental variable analysis to estimate treatment effects: a simulation study showing potential benefits of conditioning on hospital.
    Ceyisakar IE; van Leeuwen N; Steyerberg EW; Lingsma HF
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2022 Apr; 22(1):121. PubMed ID: 35468748
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Selecting polychoric instrumental variables in confirmatory factor analysis: An alternative specification test and effects of instrumental variables.
    Jin S; Cao C
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2018 May; 71(2):387-413. PubMed ID: 29323415
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Adjustment for unmeasured confounding through informative priors for the confounder-outcome relation.
    Groenwold RHH; Shofty I; Miočević M; van Smeden M; Klugkist I
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2018 Dec; 18(1):174. PubMed ID: 30577773
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Analysis approaches to address treatment nonadherence in pragmatic trials with point-treatment settings: a simulation study.
    Hossain MB; Mosquera L; Karim ME
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2022 Feb; 22(1):46. PubMed ID: 35172746
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 15.