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 *

138 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25437418)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. Effectiveness Research in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Necessity and a Methodological Challenge.
    Salleron J; Danese S; D'Agay L; Peyrin-Biroulet L
    J Crohns Colitis; 2016 Sep; 10(9):1096-102. PubMed ID: 26944416
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Active-comparator design and new-user design in observational studies.
    Yoshida K; Solomon DH; Kim SC
    Nat Rev Rheumatol; 2015 Jul; 11(7):437-41. PubMed ID: 25800216
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. Instrumental variable methods in comparative safety and effectiveness research.
    Brookhart MA; Rassen JA; Schneeweiss S
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2010 Jun; 19(6):537-54. PubMed ID: 20354968
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Assessing validity of observational intervention studies - the Benchmarking Controlled Trials.
    Malmivaara A
    Ann Med; 2016 Sep; 48(6):440-443. PubMed ID: 27238631
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. How Do You Know Which Health Care Effectiveness Research You Can Trust? A Guide to Study Design for the Perplexed.
    Soumerai SB; Starr D; Majumdar SR
    Prev Chronic Dis; 2015 Jun; 12():E101. PubMed ID: 26111157
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. The value of including observational studies in systematic reviews was unclear: a descriptive study.
    Seida J; Dryden DM; Hartling L
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2014 Dec; 67(12):1343-52. PubMed ID: 25248829
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Handling missing data in propensity score estimation in comparative effectiveness evaluations: a systematic review.
    Malla L; Perera-Salazar R; McFadden E; Ogero M; Stepniewska K; English M
    J Comp Eff Res; 2018 Mar; 7(3):271-279. PubMed ID: 28980833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Methodological considerations in observational comparative effectiveness research for implantable medical devices: an epidemiologic perspective.
    Jalbert JJ; Ritchey ME; Mi X; Chen CY; Hammill BG; Curtis LH; Setoguchi S
    Am J Epidemiol; 2014 Nov; 180(9):949-58. PubMed ID: 25255810
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Regulatory considerations in the design of comparative observational studies using propensity scores.
    Yue LQ
    J Biopharm Stat; 2012; 22(6):1272-9. PubMed ID: 23075022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. High-dimensional propensity score algorithm in comparative effectiveness research with time-varying interventions.
    Neugebauer R; Schmittdiel JA; Zhu Z; Rassen JA; Seeger JD; Schneeweiss S
    Stat Med; 2015 Feb; 34(5):753-81. PubMed ID: 25488047
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Comparing drug effectiveness in children: A systematic review.
    Dukanovic J; Osokogu OU; Patel K; Ferrajolo C; Sturkenboom MCJM;
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2018 Dec; 27(12):1295-1301. PubMed ID: 30379371
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Postrandomization Confounding Challenges the Applicability of Randomized Clinical Trials in Comparative Effectiveness Research.
    Peng YG; Nie XL; Feng JJ; Peng XX
    Chin Med J (Engl); 2017 Apr; 130(8):993-996. PubMed ID: 28397731
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Probabilistic bias analysis in pharmacoepidemiology and comparative effectiveness research: a systematic review.
    Hunnicutt JN; Ulbricht CM; Chrysanthopoulou SA; Lapane KL
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2016 Dec; 25(12):1343-1353. PubMed ID: 27593968
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Network meta-analysis incorporating randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative cohort studies for assessing the safety and effectiveness of medical treatments: challenges and opportunities.
    Cameron C; Fireman B; Hutton B; Clifford T; Coyle D; Wells G; Dormuth CR; Platt R; Toh S
    Syst Rev; 2015 Nov; 4():147. PubMed ID: 26537988
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Tools for health care decision making: observational studies, modeling studies, and network meta-analyses.
    Aronson N; Grant MD
    Value Health; 2014 Mar; 17(2):141-2. PubMed ID: 24636372
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Comparison of transradial versus transfemoral percutaneous coronary intervention in routine practice: evidence for the importance of "falsification hypotheses" in observational studies of comparative effectiveness.
    Wimmer NJ; Resnic FS; Mauri L; Matheny ME; Yeh RW
    J Am Coll Cardiol; 2013 Dec; 62(22):2147-8. PubMed ID: 23954334
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Using observational studies for comparative effectiveness: finding quality with GRACE.
    Dreyer NA
    J Comp Eff Res; 2013 Sep; 2(5):413-8. PubMed ID: 24236736
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.