318 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23080538)
1. Severity of bias of a simple estimator of the causal odds ratio in Mendelian randomization studies.
Harbord RM; Didelez V; Palmer TM; Meng S; Sterne JA; Sheehan NA
Stat Med; 2013 Mar; 32(7):1246-58. PubMed ID: 23080538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Mendelian randomization with invalid instruments: effect estimation and bias detection through Egger regression.
Bowden J; Davey Smith G; Burgess S
Int J Epidemiol; 2015 Apr; 44(2):512-25. PubMed ID: 26050253
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Mendelian randomization analysis of case-control data using structural mean models.
Bowden J; Vansteelandt S
Stat Med; 2011 Mar; 30(6):678-94. PubMed ID: 21337362
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Mendelian randomization studies for a continuous exposure under case-control sampling.
Dai JY; Zhang XC
Am J Epidemiol; 2015 Mar; 181(6):440-9. PubMed ID: 25713335
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Power and sample size calculations for Mendelian randomization studies using one genetic instrument.
Freeman G; Cowling BJ; Schooling CM
Int J Epidemiol; 2013 Aug; 42(4):1157-63. PubMed ID: 23934314
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. An integrated approach to the meta-analysis of genetic association studies using Mendelian randomization.
Minelli C; Thompson JR; Tobin MD; Abrams KR
Am J Epidemiol; 2004 Sep; 160(5):445-52. PubMed ID: 15321841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The effect of non-differential measurement error on bias, precision and power in Mendelian randomization studies.
Pierce BL; VanderWeele TJ
Int J Epidemiol; 2012 Oct; 41(5):1383-93. PubMed ID: 23045203
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Meta-analysis of Mendelian randomization studies incorporating all three genotypes.
Palmer TM; Thompson JR; Tobin MD
Stat Med; 2008 Dec; 27(30):6570-82. PubMed ID: 18767201
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Testing concordance of instrumental variable effects in generalized linear models with application to Mendelian randomization.
Dai JY; Chan KC; Hsu L
Stat Med; 2014 Oct; 33(23):3986-4007. PubMed ID: 24863158
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Avoiding bias from weak instruments in Mendelian randomization studies.
Burgess S; Thompson SG;
Int J Epidemiol; 2011 Jun; 40(3):755-64. PubMed ID: 21414999
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. A review of instrumental variable estimators for Mendelian randomization.
Burgess S; Small DS; Thompson SG
Stat Methods Med Res; 2017 Oct; 26(5):2333-2355. PubMed ID: 26282889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. An introduction to instrumental variables--part 2: Mendelian randomisation.
Bennett DA
Neuroepidemiology; 2010; 35(4):307-10. PubMed ID: 21042034
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Network Mendelian randomization: using genetic variants as instrumental variables to investigate mediation in causal pathways.
Burgess S; Daniel RM; Butterworth AS; Thompson SG;
Int J Epidemiol; 2015 Apr; 44(2):484-95. PubMed ID: 25150977
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Bayesian methods for instrumental variable analysis with genetic instruments ('Mendelian randomization'): example with urate transporter SLC2A9 as an instrumental variable for effect of urate levels on metabolic syndrome.
McKeigue PM; Campbell H; Wild S; Vitart V; Hayward C; Rudan I; Wright AF; Wilson JF
Int J Epidemiol; 2010 Jun; 39(3):907-18. PubMed ID: 20348110
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Use of the instrumental inequalities in simulated mendelian randomization analyses with coarsened exposures.
Diemer EW; Shi J; Hernan MA; Swanson SA
Eur J Epidemiol; 2024 May; 39(5):491-499. PubMed ID: 38819552
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Estimators and confidence intervals for the marginal odds ratio using logistic regression and propensity score stratification.
Stampf S; Graf E; Schmoor C; Schumacher M
Stat Med; 2010 Mar; 29(7-8):760-9. PubMed ID: 20213703
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
