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 *

183 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23343737)

  • 1. [Instrumental variable analysis].
    Boef AG; le Cessie S; Dekkers OM
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2013; 157(4):A5481. PubMed ID: 23343737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Instrumental variables: application and limitations.
    Martens EP; Pestman WR; de Boer A; Belitser SV; Klungel OH
    Epidemiology; 2006 May; 17(3):260-7. PubMed ID: 16617274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The missing cause approach to unmeasured confounding in pharmacoepidemiology.
    Abrahamowicz M; Bjerre LM; Beauchamp ME; LeLorier J; Burne R
    Stat Med; 2016 Mar; 35(7):1001-16. PubMed ID: 26932124
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Instruments for causal inference: an epidemiologist's dream?
    Hernán MA; Robins JM
    Epidemiology; 2006 Jul; 17(4):360-72. PubMed ID: 16755261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Assessing the impact of unmeasured confounding for binary outcomes using confounding functions.
    Kasza J; Wolfe R; Schuster T
    Int J Epidemiol; 2017 Aug; 46(4):1303-1311. PubMed ID: 28338913
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. [Bias in observational research: 'confounding'].
    Groenwold RH
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2012; 156(13):A4221. PubMed ID: 22456291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The sign of the unmeasured confounding bias under various standard populations.
    Chiba Y
    Biom J; 2009 Aug; 51(4):670-6. PubMed ID: 19650054
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A general approach to evaluating the bias of 2-stage instrumental variable estimators.
    Wan F; Small D; Mitra N
    Stat Med; 2018 May; 37(12):1997-2015. PubMed ID: 29572890
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Issues in the reporting and conduct of instrumental variable studies: a systematic review.
    Davies NM; Smith GD; Windmeijer F; Martin RM
    Epidemiology; 2013 May; 24(3):363-9. PubMed ID: 23532055
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Fixed effects analysis of repeated measures data.
    Gunasekara FI; Richardson K; Carter K; Blakely T
    Int J Epidemiol; 2014 Feb; 43(1):264-9. PubMed ID: 24366487
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A tutorial on the use of instrumental variables in pharmacoepidemiology.
    Ertefaie A; Small DS; Flory JH; Hennessy S
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2017 Apr; 26(4):357-367. PubMed ID: 28239929
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Interpreting treatment-effect estimates with heterogeneity and choice: simulation model results.
    Brooks JM; Fang G
    Clin Ther; 2009 Apr; 31(4):902-19. PubMed ID: 19446162
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. A sensitivity analysis using information about measured confounders yielded improved uncertainty assessments for unmeasured confounding.
    McCandless LC; Gustafson P; Levy AR
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Mar; 61(3):247-55. PubMed ID: 18226747
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Potential bias of instrumental variable analyses for observational comparative effectiveness research.
    Garabedian LF; Chu P; Toh S; Zaslavsky AM; Soumerai SB
    Ann Intern Med; 2014 Jul; 161(2):131-8. PubMed ID: 25023252
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Quantitative falsification of instrumental variables assumption using balance measures.
    Ali MS; Uddin MJ; Groenwold RH; Pestman WR; Belitser SV; Hoes AW; de Boer A; Roes KC; Klungel OH
    Epidemiology; 2014 Sep; 25(5):770-2. PubMed ID: 25076152
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.