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 *

166 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22688682)

  • 1. Propensity score calibration in the absence of surrogacy.
    Lunt M; Glynn RJ; Rothman KJ; Avorn J; Stürmer T
    Am J Epidemiol; 2012 Jun; 175(12):1294-302. PubMed ID: 22688682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Performance of propensity score calibration--a simulation study.
    Stürmer T; Schneeweiss S; Rothman KJ; Avorn J; Glynn RJ
    Am J Epidemiol; 2007 May; 165(10):1110-8. PubMed ID: 17395595
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A Cautionary Note on Using Propensity Score Calibration to Control for Unmeasured Confounding Bias When the Surrogacy Assumption Is Absent.
    Wan F
    Am J Epidemiol; 2024 Feb; 193(2):360-369. PubMed ID: 37759344
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Treatment effects in the presence of unmeasured confounding: dealing with observations in the tails of the propensity score distribution--a simulation study.
    Stürmer T; Rothman KJ; Avorn J; Glynn RJ
    Am J Epidemiol; 2010 Oct; 172(7):843-54. PubMed ID: 20716704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Adjusting effect estimates for unmeasured confounding with validation data using propensity score calibration.
    Stürmer T; Schneeweiss S; Avorn J; Glynn RJ
    Am J Epidemiol; 2005 Aug; 162(3):279-89. PubMed ID: 15987725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Martingale residual-based method to control for confounders measured only in a validation sample in time-to-event analysis.
    Burne RM; Abrahamowicz M
    Stat Med; 2016 Nov; 35(25):4588-4606. PubMed ID: 27306611
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. [Application of directed acyclic graphs in identifying and controlling confounding bias].
    Liu HX; Wang HB; Wang N
    Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi; 2020 Apr; 41(4):585-588. PubMed ID: 32344486
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A comparison of methods to estimate the survivor average causal effect in the presence of missing data: a simulation study.
    McGuinness MB; Kasza J; Karahalios A; Guymer RH; Finger RP; Simpson JA
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Dec; 19(1):223. PubMed ID: 31795945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Propensity Score Weighting and Trimming Strategies for Reducing Variance and Bias of Treatment Effect Estimates: A Simulation Study.
    Stürmer T; Webster-Clark M; Lund JL; Wyss R; Ellis AR; Lunt M; Rothman KJ; Glynn RJ
    Am J Epidemiol; 2021 Aug; 190(8):1659-1670. PubMed ID: 33615349
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Adjustment for time-dependent unmeasured confounders in marginal structural Cox models using validation sample data.
    Burne RM; Abrahamowicz M
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2019 Feb; 28(2):357-371. PubMed ID: 28835193
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Adjustments for unmeasured confounders in pharmacoepidemiologic database studies using external information.
    Stürmer T; Glynn RJ; Rothman KJ; Avorn J; Schneeweiss S
    Med Care; 2007 Oct; 45(10 Supl 2):S158-65. PubMed ID: 17909375
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Investigation of the structure and magnitude of time-varying uncontrolled confounding in simulated cohort data analyzed using g-computation.
    Soohoo M; Arah OA
    Int J Epidemiol; 2023 Dec; 52(6):1907-1913. PubMed ID: 37898996
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Reducing bias in pelvic floor disorders research: using directed acyclic graphs as an aid.
    Sung VW
    Neurourol Urodyn; 2012 Jan; 31(1):115-20. PubMed ID: 21826724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [How to adjust confounders in studies on observational comparative effectiveness: (3) approaches on sensitivity analysis for confounder adjustment].
    Huang LL; Zhao Y; Wei YY; Chen F
    Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi; 2019 Dec; 40(12):1645-1649. PubMed ID: 32062931
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Misuse of Regression Adjustment for Additional Confounders Following Insufficient Propensity Score Balancing.
    Shinozaki T; Nojima M
    Epidemiology; 2019 Jul; 30(4):541-548. PubMed ID: 31166216
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Using Sensitivity Analyses for Unobserved Confounding to Address Covariate Measurement Error in Propensity Score Methods.
    Rudolph KE; Stuart EA
    Am J Epidemiol; 2018 Mar; 187(3):604-613. PubMed ID: 28992211
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. [Confounder adjustment in observational comparative effectiveness researches: (2) statistical adjustment approaches for unmeasured confounders].
    Huang LL; Wei YY; Chen F
    Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi; 2019 Nov; 40(11):1450-1455. PubMed ID: 31838820
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.