349 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23849158)
1. Prognostic score-based balance measures can be a useful diagnostic for propensity score methods in comparative effectiveness research.
Stuart EA; Lee BK; Leacy FP
J Clin Epidemiol; 2013 Aug; 66(8 Suppl):S84-S90.e1. PubMed ID: 23849158
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Assessment of the E-value in the presence of bias amplification: a simulation study.
Barrette E; Higuera L; Wherry K
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2024 Mar; 24(1):79. PubMed ID: 38539082
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. The "Dry-Run" Analysis: A Method for Evaluating Risk Scores for Confounding Control.
Wyss R; Hansen BB; Ellis AR; Gagne JJ; Desai RJ; Glynn RJ; Stürmer T
Am J Epidemiol; 2017 May; 185(9):842-852. PubMed ID: 28338910
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Confounding control in a nonexperimental study of STAR*D data: logistic regression balanced covariates better than boosted CART.
Ellis AR; Dusetzina SB; Hansen RA; Gaynes BN; Farley JF; Stürmer T
Ann Epidemiol; 2013 Apr; 23(4):204-9. PubMed ID: 23419508
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The role of prediction modeling in propensity score estimation: an evaluation of logistic regression, bCART, and the covariate-balancing propensity score.
Wyss R; Ellis AR; Brookhart MA; Girman CJ; Jonsson Funk M; LoCasale R; Stürmer T
Am J Epidemiol; 2014 Sep; 180(6):645-55. PubMed ID: 25143475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Evaluating the comparability of osteoporosis treatments using propensity score and negative control outcome methods in UK and Denmark electronic health record databases.
Tan EH; Rathod-Mistry T; Strauss VY; O'Kelly J; Giorgianni F; Baxter R; Brunetti VC; Pedersen AB; Ehrenstein V; Prieto-Alhambra D
J Bone Miner Res; 2024 Apr; ():. PubMed ID: 38619297
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Improving propensity score estimators' robustness to model misspecification using super learner.
Pirracchio R; Petersen ML; van der Laan M
Am J Epidemiol; 2015 Jan; 181(2):108-19. PubMed ID: 25515168
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Covariate balance-related propensity score weighting in estimating overall hazard ratio with distributed survival data.
Huang C; Wei K; Wang C; Yu Y; Qin G
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2023 Oct; 23(1):233. PubMed ID: 37833641
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Double-adjustment in propensity score matching analysis: choosing a threshold for considering residual imbalance.
Nguyen TL; Collins GS; Spence J; Daurès JP; Devereaux PJ; Landais P; Le Manach Y
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Apr; 17(1):78. PubMed ID: 28454568
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. An evolutionary algorithm for the direct optimization of covariate balance between nonrandomized populations.
Privitera S; Sedghamiz H; Hartenstein A; Vaitsiakhovich T; Kleinjung F
Pharm Stat; 2024; 23(3):288-307. PubMed ID: 38111126
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Improving propensity score weighting using machine learning.
Lee BK; Lessler J; Stuart EA
Stat Med; 2010 Feb; 29(3):337-46. PubMed ID: 19960510
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Propensity scores for confounder adjustment when assessing the effects of medical interventions using nonexperimental study designs.
Stürmer T; Wyss R; Glynn RJ; Brookhart MA
J Intern Med; 2014 Jun; 275(6):570-80. PubMed ID: 24520806
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Propensity score analysis methods with balancing constraints: A Monte Carlo study.
Li Y; Li L
Stat Methods Med Res; 2021 Apr; 30(4):1119-1142. PubMed ID: 33525962
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Evaluating possible confounding by prescriber in comparative effectiveness research.
Franklin JM; Schneeweiss S; Huybrechts KF; Glynn RJ
Epidemiology; 2015 Mar; 26(2):238-41. PubMed ID: 25643103
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Higher Moments for Optimal Balance Weighting in Causal Estimation.
Huang MY; Vegetabile BG; Burgette LF; Setodji C; Griffin BA
Epidemiology; 2022 Jul; 33(4):551-554. PubMed ID: 35439772
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Combining Super Learner with high-dimensional propensity score to improve confounding adjustment: A real-world application in chronic lymphocytic leukemia.
Dhopeshwarkar N; Yang W; Hennessy S; Rhodes JM; Cuker A; Leonard CE
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2024 Jan; 33(1):e5678. PubMed ID: 37609668
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Synthetic Negative Controls: Using Simulation to Screen Large-scale Propensity Score Analyses.
Wyss R; Schneeweiss S; Lin KJ; Miller DP; Kalilani L; Franklin JM
Epidemiology; 2022 Jul; 33(4):541-550. PubMed ID: 35439779
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Multinomial Extension of Propensity Score Trimming Methods: A Simulation Study.
Yoshida K; Solomon DH; Haneuse S; Kim SC; Patorno E; Tedeschi SK; Lyu H; Franklin JM; Stürmer T; Hernández-Díaz S; Glynn RJ
Am J Epidemiol; 2019 Mar; 188(3):609-616. PubMed ID: 30517602
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. An overview of propensity score matching methods for clustered data.
Langworthy B; Wu Y; Wang M
Stat Methods Med Res; 2023 Apr; 32(4):641-655. PubMed ID: 36426585
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
