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 *

126 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26239405)

  • 21. Instrumental variables and inverse probability weighting for causal inference from longitudinal observational studies.
    Hogan JW; Lancaster T
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2004 Feb; 13(1):17-48. PubMed ID: 14746439
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Cross-linked survey analysis is an approach for separating cause and effect in survey research.
    Redelmeier DA; Thiruchelvam D; Lustig AJ
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 Jan; 68(1):35-43. PubMed ID: 25306395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. [A comparison of two methods to adjust for non-response bias: field substitution and weighting non-response adjustments based on response propensity].
    Vives A; Ferreccio C; Marshall G
    Gac Sanit; 2009; 23(4):266-71. PubMed ID: 19481307
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Telephone service interruption weighting adjustments for state health insurance surveys.
    Davern M; Lepkowski J; Call KT; Arnold N; Johnson TL; Goldsteen K; Todd-Malmlov A; Blewett LA
    Inquiry; 2004; 41(3):280-90. PubMed ID: 15669746
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Missing data analysis: making it work in the real world.
    Graham JW
    Annu Rev Psychol; 2009; 60():549-76. PubMed ID: 18652544
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Health Estimates Using Survey Raked-Weighting Techniques in an Australian Population Health Surveillance System.
    Dal Grande E; Chittleborough CR; Campostrini S; Tucker G; Taylor AW
    Am J Epidemiol; 2015 Sep; 182(6):544-56. PubMed ID: 26306665
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Understanding the use of weights in the analysis of data from multistage surveys.
    Ciol MA; Hoffman JM; Dudgeon BJ; Shumway-Cook A; Yorkston KM; Chan L
    Arch Phys Med Rehabil; 2006 Feb; 87(2):299-303. PubMed ID: 16442990
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Generalizing observational study results: applying propensity score methods to complex surveys.
    Dugoff EH; Schuler M; Stuart EA
    Health Serv Res; 2014 Feb; 49(1):284-303. PubMed ID: 23855598
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Reducing attrition in panel studies in developing countries.
    Hill Z
    Int J Epidemiol; 2004 Jun; 33(3):493-8. PubMed ID: 15131086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Alternative methods for handling attrition: an illustration using data from the Fast Track evaluation.
    Foster EM; Fang GY;
    Eval Rev; 2004 Oct; 28(5):434-64. PubMed ID: 15358906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Handling missing data in survey research.
    Brick JM; Kalton G
    Stat Methods Med Res; 1996 Sep; 5(3):215-38. PubMed ID: 8931194
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Unstable inferences? An examination of complex survey sample design adjustments using the Current Population Survey for health services research.
    Davern M; Jones A; Lepkowski J; Davidson G; Blewett LA
    Inquiry; 2006; 43(3):283-97. PubMed ID: 17176970
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Multilevel Regression and Poststratification: A Modeling Approach to Estimating Population Quantities From Highly Selected Survey Samples.
    Downes M; Gurrin LC; English DR; Pirkis J; Currier D; Spittal MJ; Carlin JB
    Am J Epidemiol; 2018 Aug; 187(8):1780-1790. PubMed ID: 29635276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Responses to survey research: transparency and representativeness are key.
    Coons SJ
    Clin Ther; 2007 Mar; 29(3):466-8. PubMed ID: 17577467
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. Attrition Bias in Panel Data: A Sheep in Wolf's Clothing? A Case Study Based on the Mabel Survey.
    Cheng TC; Trivedi PK
    Health Econ; 2015 Sep; 24(9):1101-17. PubMed ID: 26033504
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Handling nonresponse in surveys: analytic corrections compared with converting nonresponders.
    Jenkins P; Earle-Richardson G; Burdick P; May J
    Am J Epidemiol; 2008 Feb; 167(3):369-74. PubMed ID: 17998277
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Assessment of Multiple Membership Multilevel Models: An Application to Interviewer Effects on Nonresponse.
    Durrant GB; Vassallo R; Smith PWF
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2018; 53(5):595-611. PubMed ID: 29771150
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. The problem of attrition in a Finnish longitudinal survey on depression.
    Eerola M; Huurre T; Aro H
    Eur J Epidemiol; 2005; 20(1):113-20. PubMed ID: 15756911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Longitudinal drop-out and weighting against its bias.
    Schmidt SCE; Woll A
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Dec; 17(1):164. PubMed ID: 29221434
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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