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 *

311 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23532053)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Matching Weights to Simultaneously Compare Three Treatment Groups: Comparison to Three-way Matching.
    Yoshida K; Hernández-Díaz S; Solomon DH; Jackson JW; Gagne JJ; Glynn RJ; Franklin JM
    Epidemiology; 2017 May; 28(3):387-395. PubMed ID: 28151746
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. One-to-many propensity score matching in cohort studies.
    Rassen JA; Shelat AA; Myers J; Glynn RJ; Rothman KJ; Schneeweiss S
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2012 May; 21 Suppl 2():69-80. PubMed ID: 22552982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Evaluating the Utility of Coarsened Exact Matching for Pharmacoepidemiology Using Real and Simulated Claims Data.
    Ripollone JE; Huybrechts KF; Rothman KJ; Ferguson RE; Franklin JM
    Am J Epidemiol; 2020 Jun; 189(6):613-622. PubMed ID: 31845719
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Genetic matching for time-dependent treatments: a longitudinal extension and simulation study.
    Weymann D; Chan B; Regier DA
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2023 Aug; 23(1):181. PubMed ID: 37559105
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. High-dimensional versus conventional propensity scores in a comparative effectiveness study of coxibs and reduced upper gastrointestinal complications.
    Garbe E; Kloss S; Suling M; Pigeot I; Schneeweiss S
    Eur J Clin Pharmacol; 2013 Mar; 69(3):549-57. PubMed ID: 22763756
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Optimal matching ratios in drug safety surveillance.
    Wang SV; Schneeweiss S; Rassen JA
    Epidemiology; 2014 Sep; 25(5):772-3. PubMed ID: 25076153
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Minimizing confounding in comparative observational studies with time-to-event outcomes: An extensive comparison of covariate balancing methods using Monte Carlo simulation.
    Cafri G; Fortin S; Austin PC
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2024 Aug; 33(8):1437-1460. PubMed ID: 39053570
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Evaluating uses of data mining techniques in propensity score estimation: a simulation study.
    Setoguchi S; Schneeweiss S; Brookhart MA; Glynn RJ; Cook EF
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2008 Jun; 17(6):546-55. PubMed ID: 18311848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Should a propensity score model be super? The utility of ensemble procedures for causal adjustment.
    Alam S; Moodie EEM; Stephens DA
    Stat Med; 2019 Apr; 38(9):1690-1702. PubMed ID: 30586681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Double propensity-score adjustment: A solution to design bias or bias due to incomplete matching.
    Austin PC
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2017 Feb; 26(1):201-222. PubMed ID: 25038071
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Propensity score balance measures in pharmacoepidemiology: a simulation study.
    Ali MS; Groenwold RH; Pestman WR; Belitser SV; Roes KC; Hoes AW; de Boer A; Klungel OH
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2014 Aug; 23(8):802-11. PubMed ID: 24478163
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Optimal caliper width for propensity score matching of three treatment groups: a Monte Carlo study.
    Wang Y; Cai H; Li C; Jiang Z; Wang L; Song J; Xia J
    PLoS One; 2013; 8(12):e81045. PubMed ID: 24349029
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Implications of the Propensity Score Matching Paradox in Pharmacoepidemiology.
    Ripollone JE; Huybrechts KF; Rothman KJ; Ferguson RE; Franklin JM
    Am J Epidemiol; 2018 Sep; 187(9):1951-1961. PubMed ID: 29750409
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Prognostic score-based model averaging approach for propensity score estimation.
    Kabata D; Stuart EA; Shintani A
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2024 Oct; 24(1):228. PubMed ID: 39363252
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Indications for propensity scores and review of their use in pharmacoepidemiology.
    Glynn RJ; Schneeweiss S; Stürmer T
    Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol; 2006 Mar; 98(3):253-9. PubMed ID: 16611199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 16.