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)

  • 21. [Instrumental variable analysis].
    Boef AG; le Cessie S; Dekkers OM
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2013; 157(4):A5481. PubMed ID: 23343737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. The impact of unmeasured within- and between-cluster confounding on the bias of effect estimatorsof a continuous exposure.
    Li Y; Lee Y; Port FK; Robinson BM
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2020 Aug; 29(8):2119-2139. PubMed ID: 31694489
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Methods to adjust for bias and confounding in critical care health services research involving observational data.
    Wunsch H; Linde-Zwirble WT; Angus DC
    J Crit Care; 2006 Mar; 21(1):1-7. PubMed ID: 16616616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Comparative effectiveness research in cancer with observational data.
    Giordano SH
    Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book; 2015; ():e330-5. PubMed ID: 25993193
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Survival benefit with drug-eluting stents in observational studies: fact or artifact?
    Venkitachalam L; Lei Y; Magnuson EA; Chan PS; Stolker JM; Kennedy KF; Kleiman NS; Cohen DJ;
    Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes; 2011 Nov; 4(6):587-94. PubMed ID: 21988921
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Assessing the comparative effectiveness of newly marketed medications: methodological challenges and implications for drug development.
    Schneeweiss S; Gagne JJ; Glynn RJ; Ruhl M; Rassen JA
    Clin Pharmacol Ther; 2011 Dec; 90(6):777-90. PubMed ID: 22048230
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. [Overview of design, implementation and analysis of comparative effectiveness research].
    Liao X; Xie YM; Tian F; Shen H
    Zhongguo Zhong Yao Za Zhi; 2013 Mar; 38(6):930-5. PubMed ID: 23717982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. The methods of comparative effectiveness research.
    Sox HC; Goodman SN
    Annu Rev Public Health; 2012 Apr; 33():425-45. PubMed ID: 22224891
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Targeted learning in real-world comparative effectiveness research with time-varying interventions.
    Neugebauer R; Schmittdiel JA; van der Laan MJ
    Stat Med; 2014 Jun; 33(14):2480-520. PubMed ID: 24535915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. A systematic review of instrumental variable analyses using geographic region as an instrument.
    Vertosick EA; Assel M; Vickers AJ
    Cancer Epidemiol; 2017 Dec; 51():49-55. PubMed ID: 29035744
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Some methodological points to consider when performing systematic reviews in comparative effectiveness research.
    Berlin JA; Cepeda MS
    Clin Trials; 2012 Feb; 9(1):27-34. PubMed ID: 22049086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Methods in comparative effectiveness research.
    Armstrong K
    J Clin Oncol; 2012 Dec; 30(34):4208-14. PubMed ID: 23071240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. The use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) within comparative effectiveness research: implications for clinical practice and health care policy.
    Ahmed S; Berzon RA; Revicki DA; Lenderking WR; Moinpour CM; Basch E; Reeve BB; Wu AW;
    Med Care; 2012 Dec; 50(12):1060-70. PubMed ID: 22922434
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Performing both propensity score and instrumental variable analyses in observational studies often leads to discrepant results: a systematic review.
    Laborde-Castérot H; Agrinier N; Thilly N
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 Oct; 68(10):1232-40. PubMed ID: 26026496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. An introduction to instrumental variables--part 2: Mendelian randomisation.
    Bennett DA
    Neuroepidemiology; 2010; 35(4):307-10. PubMed ID: 21042034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. It is important to note that RWD will never replace the more traditional and more robust RCT data; however, the emerging trend is to incorporate data that are more generalizable. Introduction.
    Mullins CD; Sanchez RJ
    J Manag Care Pharm; 2011; 17(9 Suppl A):S03-4. PubMed ID: 22074667
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. A new method to isolate local-area practice styles in prescription use as the basis for instrumental variables in comparative effectiveness research.
    Fang G; Brooks JM; Chrischilles EA
    Med Care; 2010 Aug; 48(8):710-7. PubMed ID: 20613655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Bias analysis of the instrumental variable estimator as an estimator of the average causal effect.
    Chiba Y
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2010 Jan; 31(1):12-7. PubMed ID: 19879376
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Consensus of recommendations guiding comparative effectiveness research methods.
    Morton JB; McConeghy R; Heinrich K; Gatto NM; Caffrey AR
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2016 Dec; 25(12):1354-1360. PubMed ID: 27365094
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.