299 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24478163)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
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. Variable selection for propensity score models when estimating treatment effects on multiple outcomes: a simulation study.
Wyss R; Girman CJ; LoCasale RJ; Brookhart AM; Stürmer T
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2013 Jan; 22(1):77-85. PubMed ID: 23070806
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The relative ability of different propensity score methods to balance measured covariates between treated and untreated subjects in observational studies.
Austin PC
Med Decis Making; 2009; 29(6):661-77. PubMed ID: 19684288
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Comparison of alternative approaches to trim subjects in the tails of the propensity score distribution.
Glynn RJ; Lunt M; Rothman KJ; Poole C; Schneeweiss S; Stürmer T
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2019 Oct; 28(10):1290-1298. PubMed ID: 31385394
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The z-difference can be used to measure covariate balance in matched propensity score analyses.
Kuss O
J Clin Epidemiol; 2013 Nov; 66(11):1302-7. PubMed ID: 23972521
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
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. Assessing balance in measured baseline covariates when using many-to-one matching on the propensity-score.
Austin PC
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2008 Dec; 17(12):1218-25. PubMed ID: 18972455
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Reporting of covariate selection and balance assessment in propensity score analysis is suboptimal: a systematic review.
Ali MS; Groenwold RH; Belitser SV; Pestman WR; Hoes AW; Roes KC; Boer Ad; Klungel OH
J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 Feb; 68(2):112-21. PubMed ID: 25433444
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Use of propensity score and disease risk score for multiple treatments with time-to-event outcome: a simulation study.
Zhang D; Kim J
J Biopharm Stat; 2019; 29(6):1103-1115. PubMed ID: 30831052
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
