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 *

201 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26610250)

  • 41. Adjusting for Confounding in Early Postlaunch Settings: Going Beyond Logistic Regression Models.
    Schmidt AF; Klungel OH; Groenwold RH;
    Epidemiology; 2016 Jan; 27(1):133-42. PubMed ID: 26436519
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. The accuracy of dominance analysis as a metric to assess relative importance: The joint impact of sampling error variance and measurement unreliability.
    Braun MT; Converse PD; Oswald FL
    J Appl Psychol; 2019 Apr; 104(4):593-602. PubMed ID: 30321030
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Oversampling and replacement strategies in propensity score matching: a critical review focused on small sample size in clinical settings.
    Bottigliengo D; Baldi I; Lanera C; Lorenzoni G; Bejko J; Bottio T; Tarzia V; Carrozzini M; Gerosa G; Berchialla P; Gregori D
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 Nov; 21(1):256. PubMed ID: 34809559
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Optimal caliper width for propensity score matching of three treatment groups: a Monte Carlo study.
    Wang Y; Cai H; Li C; Jiang Z; Wang L; Song J; Xia J
    PLoS One; 2013; 8(12):e81045. PubMed ID: 24349029
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Statistical power in parallel group point exposure studies with time-to-event outcomes: an empirical comparison of the performance of randomized controlled trials and the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) approach.
    Austin PC; Schuster T; Platt RW
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2015 Oct; 15():87. PubMed ID: 26472109
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. The importance of covariate selection in controlling for selection bias in observational studies.
    Steiner PM; Cook TD; Shadish WR; Clark MH
    Psychol Methods; 2010 Sep; 15(3):250-67. PubMed ID: 20822251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Variable selection for propensity score models when estimating treatment effects on multiple outcomes: a simulation study.
    Wyss R; Girman CJ; LoCasale RJ; Brookhart AM; Stürmer T
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2013 Jan; 22(1):77-85. PubMed ID: 23070806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Some methods of propensity-score matching had superior performance to others: results of an empirical investigation and Monte Carlo simulations.
    Austin PC
    Biom J; 2009 Feb; 51(1):171-84. PubMed ID: 19197955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Performing both propensity score and instrumental variable analyses in observational studies often leads to discrepant results: a systematic review.
    Laborde-Castérot H; Agrinier N; Thilly N
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 Oct; 68(10):1232-40. PubMed ID: 26026496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. 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]  

  • 51. Assessing the performance of the generalized propensity score for estimating the effect of quantitative or continuous exposures on binary outcomes.
    Austin PC
    Stat Med; 2018 May; 37(11):1874-1894. PubMed ID: 29508424
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. How to perform prespecified subgroup analyses when using propensity score methods in the case of imbalanced subgroups.
    Chatelet F; Verillaud B; Chevret S
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2023 Oct; 23(1):255. PubMed ID: 37907863
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies.
    Austin PC
    Pharm Stat; 2011; 10(2):150-61. PubMed ID: 20925139
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. The relative ability of different propensity score methods to balance measured covariates between treated and untreated subjects in observational studies.
    Austin PC
    Med Decis Making; 2009; 29(6):661-77. PubMed ID: 19684288
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. The problem of controlling for imperfectly measured confounders on dissimilar populations: a database simulation study.
    Schonberger RB; Gilbertsen T; Dai F
    J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth; 2014 Apr; 28(2):247-54. PubMed ID: 23962461
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Propensity score methods and regression adjustment for analysis of nonrandomized studies with health-related quality of life outcomes.
    Cottone F; Anota A; Bonnetain F; Collins GS; Efficace F
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2019 May; 28(5):690-699. PubMed ID: 30784132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. 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]  

  • 58. Bayesian propensity score analysis for observational data.
    McCandless LC; Gustafson P; Austin PC
    Stat Med; 2009 Jan; 28(1):94-112. PubMed ID: 19012268
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Monte Carlo Simulation Approaches for Quantitative Bias Analysis: A Tutorial.
    Banack HR; Hayes-Larson E; Mayeda ER
    Epidemiol Rev; 2022 Jan; 43(1):106-117. PubMed ID: 34664653
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Using Sensitivity Analyses for Unobserved Confounding to Address Covariate Measurement Error in Propensity Score Methods.
    Rudolph KE; Stuart EA
    Am J Epidemiol; 2018 Mar; 187(3):604-613. PubMed ID: 28992211
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.