135 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23765683)
1. Can we make smart choices between OLS and contaminated IV methods?
Basu A; Chan KC
Health Econ; 2014 Apr; 23(4):462-72. PubMed ID: 23765683
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Some cautions on the use of instrumental variables estimators in outcomes research: how bias in instrumental variables estimators is affected by instrument strength, instrument contamination, and sample size.
Crown WH; Henk HJ; Vanness DJ
Value Health; 2011 Dec; 14(8):1078-84. PubMed ID: 22152177
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Bias testing, bias correction, and confounder selection using an instrumental variable model.
Yeob Choi B; Fine JP; Alan Brookhart M
Stat Med; 2020 Dec; 39(29):4386-4404. PubMed ID: 32854161
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Sample size importantly limits the usefulness of instrumental variable methods, depending on instrument strength and level of confounding.
Boef AG; Dekkers OM; Vandenbroucke JP; le Cessie S
J Clin Epidemiol; 2014 Nov; 67(11):1258-64. PubMed ID: 25124167
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Instrumental variables vs. grouping approach for reducing bias due to measurement error.
Batistatou E; McNamee R
Int J Biostat; 2008; 4(1):Article 8. PubMed ID: 22462115
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Dose-response modeling in mental health using stein-like estimators with instrumental variables.
Ginestet CE; Emsley R; Landau S
Stat Med; 2017 May; 36(11):1696-1714. PubMed ID: 28222485
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Evaluating disease management programme effectiveness: an introduction to instrumental variables.
Linden A; Adams JL
J Eval Clin Pract; 2006 Apr; 12(2):148-54. PubMed ID: 16579823
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Use and misuse of the reduced major axis for line-fitting.
Smith RJ
Am J Phys Anthropol; 2009 Nov; 140(3):476-86. PubMed ID: 19425097
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. An exploratory instrumental variable analysis of the outcomes of localized breast cancer treatments in a medicare population.
Hadley J; Polsky D; Mandelblatt JS; Mitchell JM; Weeks JC; Wang Q; Hwang YT;
Health Econ; 2003 Mar; 12(3):171-86. PubMed ID: 12605463
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A comparison of methods to handle skew distributed cost variables in the analysis of the resource consumption in schizophrenia treatment.
Kilian R; Matschinger H; Löeffler W; Roick C; Angermeyer MC
J Ment Health Policy Econ; 2002 Mar; 5(1):21-31. PubMed ID: 12529567
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Pharmacokinetic parameter estimations by minimum relative entropy method.
Amisaki T; Eguchi S
J Pharmacokinet Biopharm; 1995 Oct; 23(5):479-94. PubMed ID: 8656343
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Assessing the performance of physician's prescribing preference as an instrumental variable in comparative effectiveness research with moderate and small sample sizes: a simulation study.
Zhang L; Lewsey J; McAllister DA
J Comp Eff Res; 2024 May; 13(5):e230044. PubMed ID: 38567966
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Endogeneity bias in the absence of unobserved heterogeneity.
Berg GD; Mansley EC
Ann Epidemiol; 2004 Sep; 14(8):561-5. PubMed ID: 15350955
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [Measurement errors and linear regression].
Marques-Vidal P; Rakotovao R; Ducimetière P
Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique; 1994; 42(1):58-67. PubMed ID: 8134667
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Using heteroskedasticity-consistent standard error estimators in OLS regression: an introduction and software implementation.
Hayes AF; Cai L
Behav Res Methods; 2007 Nov; 39(4):709-22. PubMed ID: 18183883
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Performance of Matching Methods as Compared With Unmatched Ordinary Least Squares Regression Under Constant Effects.
Vable AM; Kiang MV; Glymour MM; Rigdon J; Drabo EF; Basu S
Am J Epidemiol; 2019 Jul; 188(7):1345-1354. PubMed ID: 30995301
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Multilevel mediation modeling in group-based intervention studies.
Krull JL; MacKinnon DP
Eval Rev; 1999 Aug; 23(4):418-44. PubMed ID: 10558394
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. There's a reason they call them dummy variables: a note on the use of structural equation techniques in comparative effectiveness research.
Crown WH
Pharmacoeconomics; 2010; 28(10):947-55. PubMed ID: 20831303
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The productivity of mental health care: an instrumental variable approach.
Lu M
J Ment Health Policy Econ; 1999 Jun; 2(2):59-71. PubMed ID: 11967410
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
