200 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26610250)
21. Comparison of balancing scores using the ANCOVA approach for estimating average treatment effect: a simulation study.
Tu C; Koh WY
J Biopharm Stat; 2019; 29(3):508-515. PubMed ID: 30561245
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Propensity score applied to survival data analysis through proportional hazards models: a Monte Carlo study.
Gayat E; Resche-Rigon M; Mary JY; Porcher R
Pharm Stat; 2012; 11(3):222-9. PubMed ID: 22411785
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Genetic matching for time-dependent treatments: a longitudinal extension and simulation study.
Weymann D; Chan B; Regier DA
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2023 Aug; 23(1):181. PubMed ID: 37559105
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Estimating subgroup effects using the propensity score method: a practical application in outcomes research.
Eeren HV; Spreeuwenberg MD; Bartak A; de Rooij M; Busschbach JJ
Med Care; 2015 Apr; 53(4):366-73. PubMed ID: 25738381
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. The performance of different propensity-score methods for estimating relative risks.
Austin PC
J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Jun; 61(6):537-45. PubMed ID: 18471657
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Estimating the effect of treatment on binary outcomes using full matching on the propensity score.
Austin PC; Stuart EA
Stat Methods Med Res; 2017 Dec; 26(6):2505-2525. PubMed ID: 26329750
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Propensity-score analysis in thoracic surgery: When, why, and an introduction to how.
Winger DG; Nason KS
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2016 Jun; 151(6):1484-7. PubMed ID: 27207121
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Propensity scores: a tool to help quantify treatment effects in observational studies.
Patino CM; Ferreira JC
J Bras Pneumol; 2017; 43(2):86. PubMed ID: 28538773
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. Use of propensity score and disease risk score for multiple treatments with time-to-event outcome: a simulation study.
Zhang D; Kim J
J Biopharm Stat; 2019; 29(6):1103-1115. PubMed ID: 30831052
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Conditioning on the propensity score can result in biased estimation of common measures of treatment effect: a Monte Carlo study.
Austin PC; Grootendorst P; Normand SL; Anderson GM
Stat Med; 2007 Feb; 26(4):754-68. PubMed ID: 16783757
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Double-adjustment in propensity score matching analysis: choosing a threshold for considering residual imbalance.
Nguyen TL; Collins GS; Spence J; Daurès JP; Devereaux PJ; Landais P; Le Manach Y
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Apr; 17(1):78. PubMed ID: 28454568
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Performance of propensity score methods when comparison groups originate from different data sources.
Hammill BG; Curtis LH; Setoguchi S
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2012 May; 21 Suppl 2():81-9. PubMed ID: 22552983
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Unreliable Continuous Treatment Indicators in Propensity Score Analysis.
Fish GA; Leite WL
Multivariate Behav Res; 2024; 59(2):187-205. PubMed ID: 37524119
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Magnitude and direction of missing confounders had different consequences on treatment effect estimation in propensity score analysis.
Nguyen TL; Collins GS; Spence J; Fontaine C; Daurès JP; Devereaux PJ; Landais P; Le Manach Y
J Clin Epidemiol; 2017 Jul; 87():87-97. PubMed ID: 28412467
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. 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]
36. A Viable Alternative When Propensity Scores Fail: Evaluation of Inverse Propensity Weighting and Sequential G-Estimation in a Two-Wave Mediation Model.
Valente MJ; MacKinnon DP; Mazza GL
Multivariate Behav Res; 2020; 55(2):165-187. PubMed ID: 31220937
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Accounting for response misclassification and covariate measurement error improves power and reduces bias in epidemiologic studies.
Cheng D; Branscum AJ; Stamey JD
Ann Epidemiol; 2010 Jul; 20(7):562-7. PubMed ID: 20538200
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. When does measurement error in covariates impact causal effect estimates? Analytic derivations of different scenarios and an empirical illustration.
Sengewald MA; Steiner PM; Pohl S
Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2019 May; 72(2):244-270. PubMed ID: 30345554
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Avoiding pitfalls when combining multiple imputation and propensity scores.
Granger E; Sergeant JC; Lunt M
Stat Med; 2019 Nov; 38(26):5120-5132. PubMed ID: 31512265
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Propensity score trimming mitigates bias due to covariate measurement error in inverse probability of treatment weighted analyses: A plasmode simulation.
Conover MM; Rothman KJ; Stürmer T; Ellis AR; Poole C; Jonsson Funk M
Stat Med; 2021 Apr; 40(9):2101-2112. PubMed ID: 33622016
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
