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 *

194 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27232253)

  • 41. Risk of bias in observational studies using routinely collected data of comparative effectiveness research: a meta-research study.
    Nguyen VT; Engleton M; Davison M; Ravaud P; Porcher R; Boutron I
    BMC Med; 2021 Nov; 19(1):279. PubMed ID: 34809637
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. 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]  

  • 43. 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]  

  • 44. Review of the comparative effectiveness of radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, or expectant management of localized prostate cancer in registry data.
    Serrell EC; Pitts D; Hayn M; Beaule L; Hansen MH; Sammon JD
    Urol Oncol; 2018 Apr; 36(4):183-192. PubMed ID: 29122446
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. 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]  

  • 46. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: approaches to mitigate bias and confounding in the design of nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report--Part II.
    Cox E; Martin BC; Van Staa T; Garbe E; Siebert U; Johnson ML
    Value Health; 2009; 12(8):1053-61. PubMed ID: 19744292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. 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]  

  • 48. Association between pacifier use and breast-feeding, sudden infant death syndrome, infection and dental malocclusion.
    Callaghan A; Kendall G; Lock C; Mahony A; Payne J; Verrier L
    Int J Evid Based Healthc; 2005 Jul; 3(6):147-67. PubMed ID: 21631747
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. 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]  

  • 50. Avoidable waste related to inadequate methods and incomplete reporting of interventions: a systematic review of randomized trials performed in Sub-Saharan Africa.
    Ndounga Diakou LA; Ntoumi F; Ravaud P; Boutron I
    Trials; 2017 Jul; 18(1):291. PubMed ID: 28676066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. CONSORT compliance in surgical randomized trials: are we there yet? A systematic review.
    Adie S; Harris IA; Naylor JM; Mittal R
    Ann Surg; 2013 Dec; 258(6):872-8. PubMed ID: 23732263
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. 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]  

  • 53. 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]  

  • 54. A methodological review of the high-dimensional propensity score in comparative-effectiveness and safety-of-interventions research finds incomplete reporting relative to algorithm development and robustness.
    Martin GL; Petri C; Rozenberg J; Simon N; Hajage D; Kirchgesner J; Tubach F; Létinier L; Dechartres A
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2024 May; 169():111305. PubMed ID: 38417583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Primer on statistical interpretation or methods report card on propensity-score matching in the cardiology literature from 2004 to 2006: a systematic review.
    Austin PC
    Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes; 2008 Sep; 1(1):62-7. PubMed ID: 20031790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Assessing the comparative effectiveness of newly marketed medications: methodological challenges and implications for drug development.
    Schneeweiss S; Gagne JJ; Glynn RJ; Ruhl M; Rassen JA
    Clin Pharmacol Ther; 2011 Dec; 90(6):777-90. PubMed ID: 22048230
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. The effectiveness of internet-based e-learning on clinician behavior and patient outcomes: a systematic review protocol.
    Sinclair P; Kable A; Levett-Jones T
    JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep; 2015 Jan; 13(1):52-64. PubMed ID: 26447007
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials of pharmacologic treatment of bipolar disorders: a systematic review.
    Strech D; Soltmann B; Weikert B; Bauer M; Pfennig A
    J Clin Psychiatry; 2011 Sep; 72(9):1214-21. PubMed ID: 21294992
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Analysing and reporting of observational data: a systematic review informing the EULAR points to consider when analysing and reporting comparative effectiveness research with observational data in rheumatology.
    Lauper K; Kedra J; de Wit M; Fautrel B; Frisell T; Hyrich KL; Iannone F; Machado PM; Ørnbjerg LM; Rotar Z; Santos MJ; Stamm TA; Stones SR; Strangfeld A; Landewé RB; Finckh A; Bergstra SA; Courvoisier DS
    RMD Open; 2021 Nov; 7(3):. PubMed ID: 34789534
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Poor quality of reporting confounding bias in observational intervention studies: a systematic review.
    Groenwold RH; Van Deursen AM; Hoes AW; Hak E
    Ann Epidemiol; 2008 Oct; 18(10):746-51. PubMed ID: 18693038
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.