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 *

157 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25525284)

  • 1. Matching With Doses in an Observational Study of a Media Campaign Against Drug Abuse.
    Lu B; Zanutto E; Hornik R; Rosenbaum PR
    J Am Stat Assoc; 2001 Dec; 96(456):1245-1253. PubMed ID: 25525284
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Using propensity score matching with doses in observational studies: An example from a child physical abuse and sleep quality study.
    Ji X; Cui N; Liu J
    Res Nurs Health; 2019 Dec; 42(6):436-445. PubMed ID: 31674676
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Optimal Nonbipartite Matching and Its Statistical Applications.
    Lu B; Greevy R; Xu X; Beck C
    Am Stat; 2011; 65(1):21-30. PubMed ID: 23175567
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Applied comparison of large-scale propensity score matching and cardinality matching for causal inference in observational research.
    Fortin SP; Johnston SS; Schuemie MJ
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 May; 21(1):109. PubMed ID: 34030640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies.
    Austin PC
    Pharm Stat; 2011; 10(2):150-61. PubMed ID: 20925139
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Optimal multivariate matching before randomization.
    Greevy R; Lu B; Silber JH; Rosenbaum P
    Biostatistics; 2004 Apr; 5(2):263-75. PubMed ID: 15054030
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Optimal caliper width for propensity score matching of three treatment groups: a Monte Carlo study.
    Wang Y; Cai H; Li C; Jiang Z; Wang L; Song J; Xia J
    PLoS One; 2013; 8(12):e81045. PubMed ID: 24349029
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: a Monte Carlo study.
    Austin PC; Grootendorst P; Anderson GM
    Stat Med; 2007 Feb; 26(4):734-53. PubMed ID: 16708349
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Incorporating Bayesian methods into the propensity score matching framework: A no-treatment effect safety analysis.
    Li L; Donnell ET
    Accid Anal Prev; 2020 Sep; 145():105691. PubMed ID: 32711214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Genetic matching for time-dependent treatments: a longitudinal extension and simulation study.
    Weymann D; Chan B; Regier DA
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2023 Aug; 23(1):181. PubMed ID: 37559105
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Some methods of propensity-score matching had superior performance to others: results of an empirical investigation and Monte Carlo simulations.
    Austin PC
    Biom J; 2009 Feb; 51(1):171-84. PubMed ID: 19197955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The performance of inverse probability of treatment weighting and full matching on the propensity score in the presence of model misspecification when estimating the effect of treatment on survival outcomes.
    Austin PC; Stuart EA
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2017 Aug; 26(4):1654-1670. PubMed ID: 25934643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Evaluating the performance of propensity score matching based approaches in individual patient data meta-analysis.
    Johara FT; Benedetti A; Platt R; Menzies D; Viiklepp P; Schaaf S; Chan E
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 Nov; 21(1):257. PubMed ID: 34814845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Selecting an appropriate caliper can be essential for achieving good balance with propensity score matching.
    Lunt M
    Am J Epidemiol; 2014 Jan; 179(2):226-35. PubMed ID: 24114655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Indirect covariate balance and residual confounding: An applied comparison of propensity score matching and cardinality matching.
    Fortin SP; Schuemie M
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2022 Dec; 31(12):1242-1252. PubMed ID: 35811396
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Peer-to-Peer Social Media as an Effective Prevention Strategy: Quasi-Experimental Evaluation.
    Evans W; Andrade E; Pratt M; Mottern A; Chavez S; Calzetta-Raymond A; Gu J
    JMIR Mhealth Uhealth; 2020 May; 8(5):e16207. PubMed ID: 32374270
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Too much ado about propensity score models? Comparing methods of propensity score matching.
    Baser O
    Value Health; 2006; 9(6):377-85. PubMed ID: 17076868
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Impact of the matching algorithm on the treatment effect estimate: A neutral comparison study.
    Heinz P; Wendel-Garcia PD; Held U
    Biom J; 2024 Jan; 66(1):e2100292. PubMed ID: 35385172
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Endovenous laser treatment
    Li Q; Zhang C; Yuan Z; Shao ZQ; Wang J
    World J Clin Cases; 2023 Dec; 11(35):8291-8299. PubMed ID: 38130604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Effects of a mastitis J5 bacterin vaccination on the productive performance of dairy cows: An observational study using propensity score matching techniques.
    Sánchez-Castro MA; Vukasinovic N; Passafaro TL; Salmon SA; Asper DJ; Moulin V; Nkrumah JD
    J Dairy Sci; 2023 Oct; 106(10):7177-7190. PubMed ID: 37210353
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.