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 *

326 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26215035)

  • 1. Propensity score interval matching: using bootstrap confidence intervals for accommodating estimation errors of propensity scores.
    Pan W; Bai H
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2015 Jul; 15():53. PubMed ID: 26215035
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Type I error rates, coverage of confidence intervals, and variance estimation in propensity-score matched analyses.
    Austin PC
    Int J Biostat; 2009 Apr; 5(1):Article 13. PubMed ID: 20949126
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The use of bootstrapping when using propensity-score matching without replacement: a simulation study.
    Austin PC; Small DS
    Stat Med; 2014 Oct; 33(24):4306-19. PubMed ID: 25087884
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Collaborative-controlled LASSO for constructing propensity score-based estimators in high-dimensional data.
    Ju C; Wyss R; Franklin JM; Schneeweiss S; Häggström J; van der Laan MJ
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2019 Apr; 28(4):1044-1063. PubMed ID: 29226777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A critical appraisal of propensity-score matching in the medical literature between 1996 and 2003.
    Austin PC
    Stat Med; 2008 May; 27(12):2037-49. PubMed ID: 18038446
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparing paired vs non-paired statistical methods of analyses when making inferences about absolute risk reductions in propensity-score matched samples.
    Austin PC
    Stat Med; 2011 May; 30(11):1292-301. PubMed ID: 21337595
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Studies with many covariates and few outcomes: selecting covariates and implementing propensity-score-based confounding adjustments.
    Patorno E; Glynn RJ; Hernández-Díaz S; Liu J; Schneeweiss S
    Epidemiology; 2014 Mar; 25(2):268-78. PubMed ID: 24487209
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Five Steps to Successfully Implement and Evaluate Propensity Score Matching in Clinical Research Studies.
    Staffa SJ; Zurakowski D
    Anesth Analg; 2018 Oct; 127(4):1066-1073. PubMed ID: 29324498
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Evaluating the use of bootstrapping in cohort studies conducted with 1:1 propensity score matching-A plasmode simulation study.
    Desai RJ; Wyss R; Abdia Y; Toh S; Johnson M; Lee H; Karami S; Major JM; Nguyen M; Wang SV; Franklin JM; Gagne JJ
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2019 Jun; 28(6):879-886. PubMed ID: 31020732
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Estimating effects of nursing intervention via propensity score analysis.
    Qin R; Titler MG; Shever LL; Kim T
    Nurs Res; 2008; 57(6):444-52. PubMed ID: 19018219
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Implications of the Propensity Score Matching Paradox in Pharmacoepidemiology.
    Ripollone JE; Huybrechts KF; Rothman KJ; Ferguson RE; Franklin JM
    Am J Epidemiol; 2018 Sep; 187(9):1951-1961. PubMed ID: 29750409
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Comparing the performance of propensity score methods in healthcare database studies with rare outcomes.
    Franklin JM; Eddings W; Austin PC; Stuart EA; Schneeweiss S
    Stat Med; 2017 May; 36(12):1946-1963. PubMed ID: 28208229
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Measuring the effect of telecare on medical expenditures without bias using the propensity score matching method.
    Akematsu Y; Tsuji M
    Telemed J E Health; 2012 Dec; 18(10):743-7. PubMed ID: 23072633
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Variance estimation of the risk difference when using propensity-score matching and weighting with time-to-event outcomes.
    Cafri G; Austin PC
    Pharm Stat; 2023; 22(5):880-902. PubMed ID: 37258420
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Randomization, matching, and propensity scores in the design and analysis of experimental studies with measured baseline covariates.
    Loux TM
    Stat Med; 2015 Feb; 34(4):558-70. PubMed ID: 25384851
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Propensity score matching and complex surveys.
    Austin PC; Jembere N; Chiu M
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2018 Apr; 27(4):1240-1257. PubMed ID: 27460539
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The concept of the marginally matched subject in propensity-score matched analyses.
    Austin PC; Lee DS
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2009 Jun; 18(6):469-82. PubMed ID: 19319923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A Generalized Bootstrap Procedure of the Standard Error and Confidence Interval Estimation for Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting.
    Li T; Lawson J
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2024; 59(2):251-265. PubMed ID: 37724449
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 17.