200 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26610250)
1. 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]
2. An Evaluation of Weighting Methods Based on Propensity Scores to Reduce Selection Bias in Multilevel Observational Studies.
Leite WL; Jimenez F; Kaya Y; Stapleton LM; MacInnes JW; Sandbach R
Multivariate Behav Res; 2015; 50(3):265-84. PubMed ID: 26610029
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Propensity score balance measures in pharmacoepidemiology: a simulation study.
Ali MS; Groenwold RH; Pestman WR; Belitser SV; Roes KC; Hoes AW; de Boer A; Klungel OH
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2014 Aug; 23(8):802-11. PubMed ID: 24478163
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The Comparison of Latent Variable Propensity Score Models to Traditional Propensity Score Models under Conditions of Covariate Unreliability.
Whittaker TA
Multivariate Behav Res; 2020; 55(4):625-646. PubMed ID: 31530179
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A comparison of approaches for stratifying on the propensity score to reduce bias.
Linden A
J Eval Clin Pract; 2017 Aug; 23(4):690-696. PubMed ID: 28074629
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Bias associated with using the estimated propensity score as a regression covariate.
Hade EM; Lu B
Stat Med; 2014 Jan; 33(1):74-87. PubMed ID: 23787715
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Propensity score methods for estimating relative risks in cluster randomized trials with low-incidence binary outcomes and selection bias.
Leyrat C; Caille A; Donner A; Giraudeau B
Stat Med; 2014 Sep; 33(20):3556-75. PubMed ID: 24771662
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Propensity scores used for analysis of cluster randomized trials with selection bias: a simulation study.
Leyrat C; Caille A; Donner A; Giraudeau B
Stat Med; 2013 Aug; 32(19):3357-72. PubMed ID: 23553813
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal hazard ratios.
Austin PC
Stat Med; 2013 Jul; 32(16):2837-49. PubMed ID: 23239115
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating absolute effects of treatments on survival outcomes: A simulation study.
Austin PC; Schuster T
Stat Methods Med Res; 2016 Oct; 25(5):2214-2237. PubMed ID: 24463885
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Double propensity-score adjustment: A solution to design bias or bias due to incomplete matching.
Austin PC
Stat Methods Med Res; 2017 Feb; 26(1):201-222. PubMed ID: 25038071
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparison of the ability of double-robust estimators to correct bias in propensity score matching analysis. A Monte Carlo simulation study.
Nguyen TL; Collins GS; Spence J; Devereaux PJ; Daurès JP; Landais P; Le Manach Y
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2017 Dec; 26(12):1513-1519. PubMed ID: 28984050
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Performance evaluation of regression splines for propensity score adjustment in post-market safety analysis with multiple treatments.
Tian Y; Baro E; Zhang R
J Biopharm Stat; 2019; 29(5):810-821. PubMed ID: 31502924
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Within-center matching performed better when using propensity score matching to analyze multicenter survival data: empirical and Monte Carlo studies.
Gayat E; Thabut G; Christie JD; Mebazaa A; Mary JY; Porcher R
J Clin Epidemiol; 2013 Sep; 66(9):1029-37. PubMed ID: 23800533
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Controlling for confounding via propensity score methods can result in biased estimation of the conditional AUC: A simulation study.
Galadima HI; McClish DK
Pharm Stat; 2019 Oct; 18(5):568-582. PubMed ID: 31111682
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
