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 *

213 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25023252)

  • 1. Potential bias of instrumental variable analyses for observational comparative effectiveness research.
    Garabedian LF; Chu P; Toh S; Zaslavsky AM; Soumerai SB
    Ann Intern Med; 2014 Jul; 161(2):131-8. PubMed ID: 25023252
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comparison of instrumental variable analysis using a new instrument with risk adjustment methods to reduce confounding by indication.
    Fang G; Brooks JM; Chrischilles EA
    Am J Epidemiol; 2012 Jun; 175(11):1142-51. PubMed ID: 22510277
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Pre-study feasibility and identifying sensitivity analyses for protocol pre-specification in comparative effectiveness research.
    Girman CJ; Faries D; Ryan P; Rotelli M; Belger M; Binkowitz B; O'Neill R;
    J Comp Eff Res; 2014 May; 3(3):259-70. PubMed ID: 24969153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Assessment of Confounders in Comparative Effectiveness Studies From Secondary Databases.
    Franklin JM; Schneeweiss S; Solomon DH
    Am J Epidemiol; 2017 Mar; 185(6):474-478. PubMed ID: 28399570
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Revisiting issues, drawbacks and opportunities with observational studies in comparative effectiveness research.
    Alemayehu D; Cappelleri JC
    J Eval Clin Pract; 2013 Aug; 19(4):579-83. PubMed ID: 22128798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Performance of instrumental variable methods in cohort and nested case-control studies: a simulation study.
    Uddin MJ; Groenwold RH; de Boer A; Belitser SV; Roes KC; Hoes AW; Klungel OH
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2014 Feb; 23(2):165-77. PubMed ID: 24306965
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Bias-variance trade-off in pharmacoepidemiological studies using physician-preference-based instrumental variables: a simulation study.
    Ionescu-Ittu R; Delaney JA; Abrahamowicz M
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2009 Jul; 18(7):562-71. PubMed ID: 19437424
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. An overview of methods for comparative effectiveness research.
    Meyer AM; Wheeler SB; Weinberger M; Chen RC; Carpenter WR
    Semin Radiat Oncol; 2014 Jan; 24(1):5-13. PubMed ID: 24314337
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Propensity score models in observational comparative effectiveness studies: cornerstone of design or statistical afterthought?
    Robinson JW
    J Comp Eff Res; 2012 Mar; 1(2):129-35. PubMed ID: 24237373
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Instrumental variable analyses for observational comparative effectiveness research: the paired availability design.
    Garabedian LF; Zaslavsky AM; Soumerai SB
    Ann Intern Med; 2014 Dec; 161(11):841. PubMed ID: 25437418
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Instrumental variable analyses for observational comparative effectiveness research: the paired availability design.
    Baker SG; Lindeman KS
    Ann Intern Med; 2014 Dec; 161(11):840-1. PubMed ID: 25437417
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparative effectiveness in head and neck malignancies.
    Lewis CM; Hutcheson KA; Kupferman ME
    Cancer Treat Res; 2015; 164():89-99. PubMed ID: 25677020
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: analytic methods to improve causal inference from nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report--Part III.
    Johnson ML; Crown W; Martin BC; Dormuth CR; Siebert U
    Value Health; 2009; 12(8):1062-73. PubMed ID: 19793071
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Two-stage instrumental variable methods for estimating the causal odds ratio: analysis of bias.
    Cai B; Small DS; Have TR
    Stat Med; 2011 Jul; 30(15):1809-24. PubMed ID: 21495062
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Observational study designs for comparative effectiveness research: an alternative approach to close evidence gaps in head-and-neck cancer.
    Goulart BH; Ramsey SD; Parvathaneni U
    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2014 Jan; 88(1):106-14. PubMed ID: 24331656
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The role of observational investigations in comparative effectiveness research.
    Marko NF; Weil RJ
    Value Health; 2010 Dec; 13(8):989-97. PubMed ID: 21138497
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparative Effectiveness Study in Multiple Sclerosis Patients Using Instrumental Variable Analysis.
    Hosseini H; Mansournia MA; Nabavi SM; Akhlaghi AA; Gholami J; Mohammad K; Majdzadeh R
    Arch Iran Med; 2018 Aug; 21(8):368-375. PubMed ID: 30113859
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Evaluating methodological assumptions in comparative effectiveness research: overcoming pitfalls.
    Alemayehu D; Cappelleri JC
    J Comp Eff Res; 2014 Jan; 3(1):79-93. PubMed ID: 24345258
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Selecting on treatment: a pervasive form of bias in instrumental variable analyses.
    Swanson SA; Robins JM; Miller M; Hernán MA
    Am J Epidemiol; 2015 Feb; 181(3):191-7. PubMed ID: 25609096
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.