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 *

188 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26026496)

  • 21. Using Big Data to Emulate a Target Trial When a Randomized Trial Is Not Available.
    Hernán MA; Robins JM
    Am J Epidemiol; 2016 Apr; 183(8):758-64. PubMed ID: 26994063
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. "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]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. Adjusting for Confounding in Early Postlaunch Settings: Going Beyond Logistic Regression Models.
    Schmidt AF; Klungel OH; Groenwold RH;
    Epidemiology; 2016 Jan; 27(1):133-42. PubMed ID: 26436519
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Considerations for observational research using large data sets in radiation oncology.
    Jagsi R; Bekelman JE; Chen A; Chen RC; Hoffman K; Shih YC; Smith BD; Yu JB
    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2014 Sep; 90(1):11-24. PubMed ID: 25195986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. On the use of propensity scores in case of rare exposure.
    Hajage D; Tubach F; Steg PG; Bhatt DL; De Rycke Y
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2016 Mar; 16():38. PubMed ID: 27036963
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Propensity Score Methods for Bias Reduction in Observational Studies of Treatment Effect.
    Johnson SR; Tomlinson GA; Hawker GA; Granton JT; Feldman BM
    Rheum Dis Clin North Am; 2018 May; 44(2):203-213. PubMed ID: 29622292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Head to head comparison of the propensity score and the high-dimensional propensity score matching methods.
    Guertin JR; Rahme E; Dormuth CR; LeLorier J
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2016 Feb; 16():22. PubMed ID: 26891796
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. On variance estimate for covariate adjustment by propensity score analysis.
    Zou B; Zou F; Shuster JJ; Tighe PJ; Koch GG; Zhou H
    Stat Med; 2016 Sep; 35(20):3537-48. PubMed ID: 26999553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Use and Interpretation of Propensity Scores in Aging Research: A Guide for Clinical Researchers.
    Kim DH; Pieper CF; Ahmed A; Colón-Emeric CS
    J Am Geriatr Soc; 2016 Oct; 64(10):2065-2073. PubMed ID: 27550392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Improving causal inference with a doubly robust estimator that combines propensity score stratification and weighting.
    Linden A
    J Eval Clin Pract; 2017 Aug; 23(4):697-702. PubMed ID: 28116816
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. A new weighted balance measure helped to select the variables to be included in a propensity score model.
    Caruana E; Chevret S; Resche-Rigon M; Pirracchio R
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 Dec; 68(12):1415-22.e2. PubMed ID: 26050059
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Using classification tree analysis to generate propensity score weights.
    Linden A; Yarnold PR
    J Eval Clin Pract; 2017 Aug; 23(4):703-712. PubMed ID: 28371206
    [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. Comparison of alternative approaches to trim subjects in the tails of the propensity score distribution.
    Glynn RJ; Lunt M; Rothman KJ; Poole C; Schneeweiss S; Stürmer T
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2019 Oct; 28(10):1290-1298. PubMed ID: 31385394
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Comparison between treatment effects in a randomised controlled trial and an observational study using propensity scores in primary care.
    Stuart BL; Grebel LE; Butler CC; Hood K; Verheij TJM; Little P
    Br J Gen Pract; 2017 Sep; 67(662):e643-e649. PubMed ID: 28760739
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. A most stubborn bias: no adjustment method fully resolves confounding by indication in observational studies.
    Bosco JL; Silliman RA; Thwin SS; Geiger AM; Buist DS; Prout MN; Yood MU; Haque R; Wei F; Lash TL
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2010 Jan; 63(1):64-74. PubMed ID: 19457638
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Adjusting for confounding by indication in observational studies: a case study in traumatic brain injury.
    Cnossen MC; van Essen TA; Ceyisakar IE; Polinder S; Andriessen TM; van der Naalt J; Haitsma I; Horn J; Franschman G; Vos PE; Peul WC; Menon DK; Maas AI; Steyerberg EW; Lingsma HF
    Clin Epidemiol; 2018; 10():841-852. PubMed ID: 30050328
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.