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 *

144 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25437418)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. "A Bayesian sensitivity analysis to evaluate the impact of unmeasured confounding with external data: a real world comparative effectiveness study in osteoporosis".
    Zhang X; Faries DE; Boytsov N; Stamey JD; Seaman JW
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2016 Sep; 25(9):982-92. PubMed ID: 27396534
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Comparative effectiveness clinical trials to advance treatment of myasthenia gravis.
    Guptill JT; Raja S; Sanders DB; Narayanaswami P
    Ann N Y Acad Sci; 2018 Feb; 1413(1):69-75. PubMed ID: 29377158
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Bayesian data analysis in observational comparative effectiveness research: rationale and examples.
    Olson WH; Crivera C; Ma YW; Panish J; Mao L; Lynch SM
    J Comp Eff Res; 2013 Nov; 2(6):563-71. PubMed ID: 24236795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Population-Based Observational Studies in Oncology: Proceed With Caution.
    Soni PD; Spratt DE
    Semin Radiat Oncol; 2019 Oct; 29(4):302-305. PubMed ID: 31472729
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The Reliability of Instrumental Variables in Health Care Effectiveness Research: Less Is More.
    Soumerai SB; Koppel R
    Health Serv Res; 2017 Feb; 52(1):9-15. PubMed ID: 27444214
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Benchmarking Controlled Trial--a novel concept covering all observational effectiveness studies.
    Malmivaara A
    Ann Med; 2015 Jun; 47(4):332-40. PubMed ID: 25965700
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Addressing unmeasured confounding in comparative observational research.
    Zhang X; Faries DE; Li H; Stamey JD; Imbens GW
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2018 Apr; 27(4):373-382. PubMed ID: 29383840
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Time-dependent biases in observational studies of comparative effectiveness research in rheumatology. A methodological review.
    Iudici M; Porcher R; Riveros C; Ravaud P
    Ann Rheum Dis; 2019 Apr; 78(4):562-569. PubMed ID: 30755417
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. From methods to policy: key questions remain unanswered.
    Dubois RW
    J Comp Eff Res; 2014 Jan; 3(1):9-10. PubMed ID: 24345251
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Alternative approaches for confounding adjustment in observational studies using weighting based on the propensity score: a primer for practitioners.
    Desai RJ; Franklin JM
    BMJ; 2019 Oct; 367():l5657. PubMed ID: 31645336
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: approaches to mitigate bias and confounding in the design of nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report--Part II.
    Cox E; Martin BC; Van Staa T; Garbe E; Siebert U; Johnson ML
    Value Health; 2009; 12(8):1053-61. PubMed ID: 19744292
    [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. Matching on provider is risky.
    Walker AM
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2013 Aug; 66(8 Suppl):S65-8. PubMed ID: 23849156
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.