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 *

423 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24323618)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Measuring balance and model selection in propensity score methods.
    Belitser SV; Martens EP; Pestman WR; Groenwold RH; de Boer A; Klungel OH
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2011 Nov; 20(11):1115-29. PubMed ID: 21805529
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A new weighted balance measure helped to select the variables to be included in a propensity score model.
    Caruana E; Chevret S; Resche-Rigon M; Pirracchio R
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 Dec; 68(12):1415-22.e2. PubMed ID: 26050059
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Evaluation of subset matching methods and forms of covariate balance.
    de Los Angeles Resa M; Zubizarreta JR
    Stat Med; 2016 Nov; 35(27):4961-4979. PubMed ID: 27442072
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Goodness-of-fit diagnostics for the propensity score model when estimating treatment effects using covariate adjustment with the propensity score.
    Austin PC
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2008 Dec; 17(12):1202-17. PubMed ID: 18972454
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Balance measures for propensity score methods: a clinical example on beta-agonist use and the risk of myocardial infarction.
    Groenwold RH; de Vries F; de Boer A; Pestman WR; Rutten FH; Hoes AW; Klungel OH
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2011 Nov; 20(11):1130-7. PubMed ID: 21953948
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Model misspecification and robustness in causal inference: comparing matching with doubly robust estimation.
    Waernbaum I
    Stat Med; 2012 Jul; 31(15):1572-81. PubMed ID: 22359267
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Estimating propensity scores with missing covariate data using general location mixture models.
    Mitra R; Reiter JP
    Stat Med; 2011 Mar; 30(6):627-41. PubMed ID: 21337358
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. On the joint use of propensity and prognostic scores in estimation of the average treatment effect on the treated: a simulation study.
    Leacy FP; Stuart EA
    Stat Med; 2014 Sep; 33(20):3488-508. PubMed ID: 24151187
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Assessing covariate balance when using the generalized propensity score with quantitative or continuous exposures.
    Austin PC
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2019 May; 28(5):1365-1377. PubMed ID: 29415624
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Conditioning on the propensity score can result in biased estimation of common measures of treatment effect: a Monte Carlo study.
    Austin PC; Grootendorst P; Normand SL; Anderson GM
    Stat Med; 2007 Feb; 26(4):754-68. PubMed ID: 16783757
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Too much ado about propensity score models? Comparing methods of propensity score matching.
    Baser O
    Value Health; 2006; 9(6):377-85. PubMed ID: 17076868
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Randomization, matching, and propensity scores in the design and analysis of experimental studies with measured baseline covariates.
    Loux TM
    Stat Med; 2015 Feb; 34(4):558-70. PubMed ID: 25384851
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 22.