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 *

215 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22944721)

  • 1. Evaluating treatment effectiveness in patient subgroups: a comparison of propensity score methods with an automated matching approach.
    Radice R; Ramsahai R; Grieve R; Kreif N; Sadique Z; Sekhon JS
    Int J Biostat; 2012 Aug; 8(1):25. PubMed ID: 22944721
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Methods for estimating subgroup effects in cost-effectiveness analyses that use observational data.
    Kreif N; Grieve R; Radice R; Sadique Z; Ramsahai R; Sekhon JS
    Med Decis Making; 2012; 32(6):750-63. PubMed ID: 22691446
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A comparison of approaches for stratifying on the propensity score to reduce bias.
    Linden A
    J Eval Clin Pract; 2017 Aug; 23(4):690-696. PubMed ID: 28074629
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Is Drotrecogin alfa (activated) for adults with severe sepsis, cost-effective in routine clinical practice?
    Sadique MZ; Grieve R; Harrison DA; Cuthbertson BH; Rowan KM
    Crit Care; 2011; 15(5):R228. PubMed ID: 21943177
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The performance of inverse probability of treatment weighting and full matching on the propensity score in the presence of model misspecification when estimating the effect of treatment on survival outcomes.
    Austin PC; Stuart EA
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2017 Aug; 26(4):1654-1670. PubMed ID: 25934643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. An evaluation of inverse probability weighting using the propensity score for baseline covariate adjustment in smaller population randomised controlled trials with a continuous outcome.
    Raad H; Cornelius V; Chan S; Williamson E; Cro S
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2020 Mar; 20(1):70. PubMed ID: 32293286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A matching method for improving covariate balance in cost-effectiveness analyses.
    Sekhon JS; Grieve RD
    Health Econ; 2012 Jun; 21(6):695-714. PubMed ID: 21633989
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Vector-based kernel weighting: A simple estimator for improving precision and bias of average treatment effects in multiple treatment settings.
    Garrido MM; Lum J; Pizer SD
    Stat Med; 2021 Feb; 40(5):1204-1223. PubMed ID: 33327037
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Drotrecogin alfa (activated) administration across clinically important subgroups of patients with severe sepsis.
    Ely EW; Laterre PF; Angus DC; Helterbrand JD; Levy H; Dhainaut JF; Vincent JL; Macias WL; Bernard GR;
    Crit Care Med; 2003 Jan; 31(1):12-9. PubMed ID: 12544987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies.
    Austin PC; Stuart EA
    Stat Med; 2015 Dec; 34(28):3661-79. PubMed ID: 26238958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Subgroup balancing propensity score.
    Dong J; Zhang JL; Zeng S; Li F
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2020 Mar; 29(3):659-676. PubMed ID: 31456486
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Propensity score trimming mitigates bias due to covariate measurement error in inverse probability of treatment weighted analyses: A plasmode simulation.
    Conover MM; Rothman KJ; Stürmer T; Ellis AR; Poole C; Jonsson Funk M
    Stat Med; 2021 Apr; 40(9):2101-2112. PubMed ID: 33622016
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Applied comparison of large-scale propensity score matching and cardinality matching for causal inference in observational research.
    Fortin SP; Johnston SS; Schuemie MJ
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 May; 21(1):109. PubMed ID: 34030640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. An evaluation of the cost effectiveness of drotrecogin alfa (activated) relative to the number of organ system failures.
    Betancourt M; McKinnon PS; Massanari RM; Kanji S; Bach D; Devlin JW
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2003; 21(18):1331-40. PubMed ID: 14750900
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Propensity score weighting under limited overlap and model misspecification.
    Zhou Y; Matsouaka RA; Thomas L
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2020 Dec; 29(12):3721-3756. PubMed ID: 32693715
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Effect of factor V Leiden polymorphism in severe sepsis and on treatment with recombinant human activated protein C.
    Yan SB; Nelson DR
    Crit Care Med; 2004 May; 32(5 Suppl):S239-46. PubMed ID: 15118525
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Squeezing the balloon: propensity scores and unmeasured covariate balance.
    Brooks JM; Ohsfeldt RL
    Health Serv Res; 2013 Aug; 48(4):1487-507. PubMed ID: 23216471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Covariate adjustment in subgroup analyses of randomized clinical trials: A propensity score approach.
    Yang S; Li F; Thomas LE; Li F
    Clin Trials; 2021 Oct; 18(5):570-581. PubMed ID: 34269087
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.