BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

272 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27576907)

  • 1. Sensitivity analysis for the effects of multiple unmeasured confounders.
    Groenwold RH; Sterne JA; Lawlor DA; Moons KG; Hoes AW; Tilling K
    Ann Epidemiol; 2016 Sep; 26(9):605-11. PubMed ID: 27576907
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The impact of residual and unmeasured confounding in epidemiologic studies: a simulation study.
    Fewell Z; Davey Smith G; Sterne JA
    Am J Epidemiol; 2007 Sep; 166(6):646-55. PubMed ID: 17615092
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. How unmeasured confounding in a competing risks setting can affect treatment effect estimates in observational studies.
    Barrowman MA; Peek N; Lambie M; Martin GP; Sperrin M
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Jul; 19(1):166. PubMed ID: 31366331
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Adjustment for unmeasured confounding through informative priors for the confounder-outcome relation.
    Groenwold RHH; Shofty I; Miočević M; van Smeden M; Klugkist I
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2018 Dec; 18(1):174. PubMed ID: 30577773
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Validity evaluation of indirect adjustment method for multiple unmeasured confounders: A simulation and empirical study.
    Byun G; Kim H; Kim SY; Kim SS; Oh H; Lee JT
    Environ Res; 2022 Mar; 204(Pt A):111992. PubMed ID: 34487697
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Assessing the impact of unmeasured confounders for credible and reliable real-world evidence.
    Zhang X; Stamey JD; Mathur MB
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2020 Oct; 29(10):1219-1227. PubMed ID: 32929830
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Sensitivity analyses of unmeasured and partially-measured confounders using multiple imputation in a vaccine safety study.
    Xu S; Clarke CL; Newcomer SR; Daley MF; Glanz JM
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2021 Sep; 30(9):1200-1213. PubMed ID: 33988275
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Bayesian sensitivity analysis for unmeasured confounding in causal mediation analysis.
    McCandless LC; Somers JM
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2019 Feb; 28(2):515-531. PubMed ID: 28882092
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [How to adjust confounders in studies on observational comparative effectiveness: (3) approaches on sensitivity analysis for confounder adjustment].
    Huang LL; Zhao Y; Wei YY; Chen F
    Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi; 2019 Dec; 40(12):1645-1649. PubMed ID: 32062931
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A sensitivity analysis using information about measured confounders yielded improved uncertainty assessments for unmeasured confounding.
    McCandless LC; Gustafson P; Levy AR
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Mar; 61(3):247-55. PubMed ID: 18226747
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Bespoke Instruments: A new tool for addressing unmeasured confounders.
    Richardson DB; Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ
    Am J Epidemiol; 2022 Mar; 191(5):939-947. PubMed ID: 34907434
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The impact of unmeasured within- and between-cluster confounding on the bias of effect estimatorsof a continuous exposure.
    Li Y; Lee Y; Port FK; Robinson BM
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2020 Aug; 29(8):2119-2139. PubMed ID: 31694489
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [Probe variables: a tool for identification of unmeasured confounders in an observational study].
    Hong X; Yin JC; Wang B
    Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi; 2021 Apr; 42(4):735-739. PubMed ID: 34814460
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Adjustment for time-dependent unmeasured confounders in marginal structural Cox models using validation sample data.
    Burne RM; Abrahamowicz M
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2019 Feb; 28(2):357-371. PubMed ID: 28835193
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A simulation-based bias analysis to assess the impact of unmeasured confounding when designing non-randomized database studies.
    Desai RJ; Bradley MC; Lee H; Eworuke E; Weberpals J; Wyss R; Schneeweiss S; Ball R
    Am J Epidemiol; 2024 May; ():. PubMed ID: 38825336
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A comparison of methods to estimate the survivor average causal effect in the presence of missing data: a simulation study.
    McGuinness MB; Kasza J; Karahalios A; Guymer RH; Finger RP; Simpson JA
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Dec; 19(1):223. PubMed ID: 31795945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Sensitivity Analysis Without Assumptions.
    Ding P; VanderWeele TJ
    Epidemiology; 2016 May; 27(3):368-77. PubMed ID: 26841057
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. To Adjust or Not to Adjust? When a "Confounder" Is Only Measured After Exposure.
    Groenwold RHH; Palmer TM; Tilling K
    Epidemiology; 2021 Mar; 32(2):194-201. PubMed ID: 33470711
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Assessing the impact of unmeasured confounding for binary outcomes using confounding functions.
    Kasza J; Wolfe R; Schuster T
    Int J Epidemiol; 2017 Aug; 46(4):1303-1311. PubMed ID: 28338913
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Bias formulas for sensitivity analysis of unmeasured confounding for general outcomes, treatments, and confounders.
    Vanderweele TJ; Arah OA
    Epidemiology; 2011 Jan; 22(1):42-52. PubMed ID: 21052008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.