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 *

164 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26833893)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. Flexible propensity score estimation strategies for clustered data in observational studies.
    Chang TH; Nguyen TQ; Lee Y; Jackson JW; Stuart EA
    Stat Med; 2022 Nov; 41(25):5016-5032. PubMed ID: 36263918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. The effect of a constraint on the maximum number of controls matched to each treated subject on the performance of full matching on the propensity score when estimating risk differences.
    Austin PC; Stuart EA
    Stat Med; 2021 Jan; 40(1):101-118. PubMed ID: 33027845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. Propensity score interval matching: using bootstrap confidence intervals for accommodating estimation errors of propensity scores.
    Pan W; Bai H
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2015 Jul; 15():53. PubMed ID: 26215035
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. A comparison of 12 algorithms for matching on the propensity score.
    Austin PC
    Stat Med; 2014 Mar; 33(6):1057-69. PubMed ID: 24123228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Apgar score and perinatal death after one previous caesarean delivery.
    Carlsson Wallin M; Ekström P; Marsál K; Källén K
    BJOG; 2010 Aug; 117(9):1088-97. PubMed ID: 20497412
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Statistical criteria for selecting the optimal number of untreated subjects matched to each treated subject when using many-to-one matching on the propensity score.
    Austin PC
    Am J Epidemiol; 2010 Nov; 172(9):1092-7. PubMed ID: 20802241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Propensity score methods and their application in nephrology research.
    Barnieh L; James MT; Zhang J; Hemmelgarn BR
    J Nephrol; 2011; 24(3):256-62. PubMed ID: 21404223
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Newborn outcomes in british columbia after caesarean section for non-reassuring fetal status.
    Jenniskens K; Janssen PA
    J Obstet Gynaecol Can; 2015 Mar; 37(3):207-213. PubMed ID: 26001867
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Propensity score estimators for the average treatment effect and the average treatment effect on the treated may yield very different estimates.
    Pirracchio R; Carone M; Rigon MR; Caruana E; Mebazaa A; Chevret S
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2016 Oct; 25(5):1938-1954. PubMed ID: 24201469
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. Too much ado about propensity score models? Comparing methods of propensity score matching.
    Baser O
    Value Health; 2006; 9(6):377-85. PubMed ID: 17076868
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Caesarean delivery and neonatal mortality rates in 46 low- and middle-income countries: a propensity-score matching and meta-analysis of Demographic and Health Survey data.
    Kyu HH; Shannon HS; Georgiades K; Boyle MH
    Int J Epidemiol; 2013 Jun; 42(3):781-91. PubMed ID: 23778573
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. Risk of maternal and neonatal complications in subsequent pregnancy after planned caesarean section in a first birth, compared with emergency caesarean section: a nationwide comparative cohort study.
    Kok N; Ruiter L; Hof M; Ravelli A; Mol BW; Pajkrt E; Kazemier B
    BJOG; 2014 Jan; 121(2):216-23. PubMed ID: 24373595
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.