548 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26484424)
1. Selection Bias Due to Loss to Follow Up in Cohort Studies.
Howe CJ; Cole SR; Lau B; Napravnik S; Eron JJ
Epidemiology; 2016 Jan; 27(1):91-7. PubMed ID: 26484424
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Limitation of inverse probability-of-censoring weights in estimating survival in the presence of strong selection bias.
Howe CJ; Cole SR; Chmiel JS; Muñoz A
Am J Epidemiol; 2011 Mar; 173(5):569-77. PubMed ID: 21289029
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Correcting for dependent censoring in routine outcome monitoring data by applying the inverse probability censoring weighted estimator.
Willems S; Schat A; van Noorden MS; Fiocco M
Stat Methods Med Res; 2018 Feb; 27(2):323-335. PubMed ID: 26988930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A causal framework for understanding the effect of losses to follow-up on epidemiologic analyses in clinic-based cohorts: the case of HIV-infected patients on antiretroviral therapy in Africa.
Geng EH; Glidden DV; Bangsberg DR; Bwana MB; Musinguzi N; Nash D; Metcalfe JZ; Yiannoutsos CT; Martin JN; Petersen ML
Am J Epidemiol; 2012 May; 175(10):1080-7. PubMed ID: 22306557
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Accounting for Selection Bias in Studies of Acute Cardiac Events.
Banack HR; Harper S; Kaufman JS
Can J Cardiol; 2018 Jun; 34(6):709-716. PubMed ID: 29801736
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Comparison of dynamic treatment regimes via inverse probability weighting.
Hernán MA; Lanoy E; Costagliola D; Robins JM
Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol; 2006 Mar; 98(3):237-42. PubMed ID: 16611197
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Variable selection using inverse probability of censoring weighting.
Kojima M
Stat Methods Med Res; 2023 Nov; 32(11):2184-2206. PubMed ID: 37675496
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Predictors of follow-up and assessment of selection bias from dropouts using inverse probability weighting in a cohort of university graduates.
Alonso A; Seguí-Gómez M; de Irala J; Sánchez-Villegas A; Beunza JJ; Martínez-Gonzalez MA
Eur J Epidemiol; 2006; 21(5):351-8. PubMed ID: 16736275
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Healthy worker survivor bias: implications of truncating follow-up at employment termination.
Picciotto S; Brown DM; Chevrier J; Eisen EA
Occup Environ Med; 2013 Oct; 70(10):736-42. PubMed ID: 23873985
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Correcting for the dependent competing risk of treatment using inverse probability of censoring weighting and copulas in the estimation of natural conception chances.
van Geloven N; Geskus RB; Mol BW; Zwinderman AH
Stat Med; 2014 Nov; 33(26):4671-80. PubMed ID: 25088060
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Estimation of treatment effect adjusting for dependent censoring using the IPCW method: an application to a large primary prevention study for coronary events (MEGA study).
Yoshida M; Matsuyama Y; Ohashi Y;
Clin Trials; 2007; 4(4):318-28. PubMed ID: 17848493
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Using marginal structural measurement-error models to estimate the long-term effect of antiretroviral therapy on incident AIDS or death.
Cole SR; Jacobson LP; Tien PC; Kingsley L; Chmiel JS; Anastos K
Am J Epidemiol; 2010 Jan; 171(1):113-22. PubMed ID: 19934191
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. How to investigate and adjust for selection bias in cohort studies.
Nohr EA; Liew Z
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2018 Apr; 97(4):407-416. PubMed ID: 29415329
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Adjustment for treatment changes in epilepsy trials: A comparison of causal methods for time-to-event outcomes.
Dodd S; Williamson P; White IR
Stat Methods Med Res; 2019 Mar; 28(3):717-733. PubMed ID: 29117780
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Targeted learning in real-world comparative effectiveness research with time-varying interventions.
Neugebauer R; Schmittdiel JA; van der Laan MJ
Stat Med; 2014 Jun; 33(14):2480-520. PubMed ID: 24535915
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Bias from self selection and loss to follow-up in prospective cohort studies.
Biele G; Gustavson K; Czajkowski NO; Nilsen RM; Reichborn-Kjennerud T; Magnus PM; Stoltenberg C; Aase H
Eur J Epidemiol; 2019 Oct; 34(10):927-938. PubMed ID: 31451995
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms and brain morphology: Addressing potential selection bias with inverse probability weighting.
Dijkzeul A; Tiemeier H; Muetzel RL; Labrecque JA
Hum Brain Mapp; 2024 Apr; 45(5):e26562. PubMed ID: 38590154
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Two-stage estimation to adjust for treatment switching in randomised trials: a simulation study investigating the use of inverse probability weighting instead of re-censoring.
Latimer NR; Abrams KR; Siebert U
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Mar; 19(1):69. PubMed ID: 30935369
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Estimation of the cumulative incidence function under multiple dependent and independent censoring mechanisms.
Lok JJ; Yang S; Sharkey B; Hughes MD
Lifetime Data Anal; 2018 Apr; 24(2):201-223. PubMed ID: 28238045
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
