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 *

187 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26833893)

  • 1. Propensity score matching with clustered data. An application to the estimation of the impact of caesarean section on the Apgar score.
    Arpino B; Cannas M
    Stat Med; 2016 May; 35(12):2074-91. PubMed ID: 26833893
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A comparison of machine learning algorithms and covariate balance measures for propensity score matching and weighting.
    Cannas M; Arpino B
    Biom J; 2019 Jul; 61(4):1049-1072. PubMed ID: 31090108
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. An overview of propensity score matching methods for clustered data.
    Langworthy B; Wu Y; Wang M
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2023 Apr; 32(4):641-655. PubMed ID: 36426585
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. The performance of inverse probability of treatment weighting and full matching on the propensity score in the presence of model misspecification when estimating the effect of treatment on survival outcomes.
    Austin PC; Stuart EA
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2017 Aug; 26(4):1654-1670. PubMed ID: 25934643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Evaluating the performance of propensity score matching based approaches in individual patient data meta-analysis.
    Johara FT; Benedetti A; Platt R; Menzies D; Viiklepp P; Schaaf S; Chan E
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 Nov; 21(1):257. PubMed ID: 34814845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Optimal full matching for survival outcomes: a method that merits more widespread use.
    Austin PC; Stuart EA
    Stat Med; 2015 Dec; 34(30):3949-67. PubMed ID: 26250611
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparing the performance of propensity score methods in healthcare database studies with rare outcomes.
    Franklin JM; Eddings W; Austin PC; Stuart EA; Schneeweiss S
    Stat Med; 2017 May; 36(12):1946-1963. PubMed ID: 28208229
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: a Monte Carlo study.
    Austin PC; Grootendorst P; Anderson GM
    Stat Med; 2007 Feb; 26(4):734-53. PubMed ID: 16708349
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Elective cesarean section or not? Maternal age and risk of adverse outcomes at term: a population-based registry study of low-risk primiparous women.
    Herstad L; Klungsøyr K; Skjærven R; Tanbo T; Forsén L; Åbyholm T; Vangen S
    BMC Pregnancy Childbirth; 2016 Aug; 16():230. PubMed ID: 27535233
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Maternal and perinatal outcomes of extreme obesity in pregnancy.
    Crane JM; Murphy P; Burrage L; Hutchens D
    J Obstet Gynaecol Can; 2013 Jul; 35(7):606-611. PubMed ID: 23876637
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Risk of poor neonatal outcome at term after medically assisted reproduction: a propensity score-matched study.
    Ensing S; Abu-Hanna A; Roseboom TJ; Repping S; van der Veen F; Mol BW; Ravelli AC
    Fertil Steril; 2015 Aug; 104(2):384-90.e1. PubMed ID: 26028279
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Propensity score methods for time-dependent cluster confounding.
    Cafri G; Austin PC
    Biom J; 2020 Oct; 62(6):1443-1462. PubMed ID: 32419247
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Variance estimation when using propensity-score matching with replacement with survival or time-to-event outcomes.
    Austin PC; Cafri G
    Stat Med; 2020 May; 39(11):1623-1640. PubMed ID: 32109319
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Influence of Fetal Birth Weight on Caesarean Section Rate and Fetal Outcome After Induction of Labor.
    Temerinac D; Chen XI; Sütterlin M; Kehl S
    In Vivo; 2015; 29(5):519-24. PubMed ID: 26359408
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Variation in hospital caesarean section rates for women with at least one previous caesarean section: a population based cohort study.
    Schemann K; Patterson JA; Nippita TA; Ford JB; Roberts CL
    BMC Pregnancy Childbirth; 2015 Aug; 15():179. PubMed ID: 26285692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Determinants of paediatrician's presence at Caesarian section.
    Tudjegbe SO; Imarengiaye CO; Sadoh WE
    West Afr J Med; 2012; 31(1):24-7. PubMed ID: 23115092
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.