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 *

187 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26026496)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Observational studies using propensity score analysis underestimated the effect sizes in critical care medicine.
    Zhang Z; Ni H; Xu X
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2014 Aug; 67(8):932-9. PubMed ID: 24774469
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Applications of propensity score methods in observational comparative effectiveness and safety research: where have we come and where should we go?
    Borah BJ; Moriarty JP; Crown WH; Doshi JA
    J Comp Eff Res; 2014 Jan; 3(1):63-78. PubMed ID: 24266593
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Potential Pitfalls of Reporting and Bias in Observational Studies With Propensity Score Analysis Assessing a Surgical Procedure: A Methodological Systematic Review.
    Lonjon G; Porcher R; Ergina P; Fouet M; Boutron I
    Ann Surg; 2017 May; 265(5):901-909. PubMed ID: 27232253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [Confounder adjustment in observational comparative effectiveness researches: (2) statistical adjustment approaches for unmeasured confounders].
    Huang LL; Wei YY; Chen F
    Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi; 2019 Nov; 40(11):1450-1455. PubMed ID: 31838820
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Use of Instrumental Variable Analyses for Evaluating Comparative Effectiveness in Empirical Applications of Oncology: A Systematic Review.
    Lu B; Thomson S; Blommaert S; Tadrous M; Earle CC; Chan KKW
    J Clin Oncol; 2023 May; 41(13):2362-2371. PubMed ID: 36512739
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Do the observational studies using propensity score analysis agree with randomized controlled trials in the area of sepsis?
    Zhang Z; Ni H; Xu X
    J Crit Care; 2014 Oct; 29(5):886.e9-15. PubMed ID: 24996762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. How Do Propensity Score Methods Measure Up in the Presence of Measurement Error? A Monte Carlo Study.
    Rodríguez De Gil P; Bellara AP; Lanehart RE; Lee RS; Kim ES; Kromrey JD
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2015; 50(5):520-32. PubMed ID: 26610250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Observational Research Using Propensity Scores.
    Raghunathan K; Layton JB; Ohnuma T; Shaw AD
    Adv Chronic Kidney Dis; 2016 Nov; 23(6):367-372. PubMed ID: 28115080
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.