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 *

105 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24670852)

  • 1. Reply to Letter: "Equivalence Approach Is More Appropriate for Comparison of Treatment Effect Estimates".
    Lonjon G; Boutron I; Trinquart L; Ahmad N; Aim F; Nizard R; Ravaud P
    Ann Surg; 2015 Aug; 262(2):e67-9. PubMed ID: 24670852
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Equivalence Approach Is More Appropriate for Comparison of Treatment Effect Estimates.
    Harrison EM; Bhangu A; Swann O; Wigmore SJ
    Ann Surg; 2015 Aug; 262(2):e67. PubMed ID: 24646547
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparison of treatment effect estimates from prospective nonrandomized studies with propensity score analysis and randomized controlled trials of surgical procedures.
    Lonjon G; Boutron I; Trinquart L; Ahmad N; Aim F; Nizard R; Ravaud P
    Ann Surg; 2014 Jan; 259(1):18-25. PubMed ID: 24096758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Can We Trust Observational Studies Using Propensity Scores in the Critical Care Literature? A Systematic Comparison With Randomized Clinical Trials.
    Kitsios GD; Dahabreh IJ; Callahan S; Paulus JK; Campagna AC; Dargin JM
    Crit Care Med; 2015 Sep; 43(9):1870-9. PubMed ID: 26086943
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparing treatment effects between propensity scores and randomized controlled trials: improving conduct and reporting.
    Collins GS; Le Manach Y
    Eur Heart J; 2012 Aug; 33(15):1867-9. PubMed ID: 22745354
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Propensity scores for comparative effectiveness research: Finding the right match.
    Sheetz KH; Derstine B; Englesbe MJ
    Surgery; 2016 Dec; 160(6):1425-1426. PubMed ID: 27486001
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Reply to letter: "CONSORT compliance in surgical randomized trials: possible solutions".
    Adie S; Harris IA; Naylor JM; Mittal R
    Ann Surg; 2015 May; 261(5):e135. PubMed ID: 24368649
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Is Propensity Score Analysis a Valid Surrogate of Randomization for the Avoidance of Allocation Bias?
    Torres F; Ríos J; Saez-Peñataro J; Pontes C
    Semin Liver Dis; 2017 Aug; 37(3):275-286. PubMed ID: 28847037
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [Propensity score methods for creating covariate balance in observational studies].
    Pattanayak CW; Rubin DB; Zell ER
    Rev Esp Cardiol; 2011 Oct; 64(10):897-903. PubMed ID: 21872981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The Evidence on the Ten Most Common Surgical Interventions in the United States From 1970 to 2018.
    Henry M; Rong LQ; Wingo M; Rahouma M; Girardi LN; Gaudino M
    Ann Surg; 2019 Aug; 270(2):e16-e17. PubMed ID: 31306157
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Making inferences on treatment effects from real world data: propensity scores, confounding by indication, and other perils for the unwary in observational research.
    Freemantle N; Marston L; Walters K; Wood J; Reynolds MR; Petersen I
    BMJ; 2013 Nov; 347():f6409. PubMed ID: 24217206
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Estimators and confidence intervals for the marginal odds ratio using logistic regression and propensity score stratification.
    Stampf S; Graf E; Schmoor C; Schumacher M
    Stat Med; 2010 Mar; 29(7-8):760-9. PubMed ID: 20213703
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Do the observational studies using propensity score analysis agree with randomized controlled trials in the area of sepsis?
    Zhang Z; Ni H; Xu X
    J Crit Care; 2014 Oct; 29(5):886.e9-15. PubMed ID: 24996762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The Use of Systematic Reviews When Designing and Reporting Surgical Trials.
    Rosenthal R; Bucher HC; Dwan K
    Ann Surg; 2017 Apr; 265(4):e35-e36. PubMed ID: 28266978
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comment on: "When does the "Learning curve" of innovative interventions become questionable practice"?, P. Healey and J. Samanta, Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2008;36:253-257.
    Beard JD
    Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg; 2009 Jan; 37(1):121; author reply 121-2. PubMed ID: 18993091
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The challenge of evaluating surgical procedures.
    Stirrat GM; Farrow SC; Farndon J; Dwyer N
    Ann R Coll Surg Engl; 1992 Mar; 74(2):80-4. PubMed ID: 1567147
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Generalized propensity score for estimating the average treatment effect of multiple treatments.
    Feng P; Zhou XH; Zou QM; Fan MY; Li XS
    Stat Med; 2012 Mar; 31(7):681-97. PubMed ID: 21351291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Randomised surgical trials.
    Chang SM
    Lancet; 1993 Oct; 342(8876):929. PubMed ID: 8105189
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. The CONSORT statement: Progress in clinical research in pediatric surgery.
    Moss RL
    J Pediatr Surg; 2001 Dec; 36(12):1739-42. PubMed ID: 11733895
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.