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.
24. Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting and Confounder Missingness in Electronic Health Record-based Analyses: A Comparison of Approaches Using Plasmode Simulation. Vader DT; Mamtani R; Li Y; Griffith SD; Calip GS; Hubbard RA Epidemiology; 2023 Jul; 34(4):520-530. PubMed ID: 37155612 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. 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]
26. Double-adjustment in propensity score matching analysis: choosing a threshold for considering residual imbalance. Nguyen TL; Collins GS; Spence J; Daurès JP; Devereaux PJ; Landais P; Le Manach Y BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Apr; 17(1):78. PubMed ID: 28454568 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. 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]
28. [Confounder adjustment in observational comparative effectiveness researches: (2) statistical adjustment approaches for unmeasured confounders]. Huang LL; Wei YY; Chen F Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi; 2019 Nov; 40(11):1450-1455. PubMed ID: 31838820 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Selecting an appropriate caliper can be essential for achieving good balance with propensity score matching. Lunt M Am J Epidemiol; 2014 Jan; 179(2):226-35. PubMed ID: 24114655 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Evaluation of the propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios in case of small sample size. Pirracchio R; Resche-Rigon M; Chevret S BMC Med Res Methodol; 2012 May; 12():70. PubMed ID: 22646911 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Logistic regression frequently outperformed propensity score methods, especially for large datasets: a simulation study. Wilkinson JD; Mamas MA; Kontopantelis E J Clin Epidemiol; 2022 Dec; 152():176-184. PubMed ID: 36126791 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Implementing high-dimensional propensity score principles to improve confounder adjustment in UK electronic health records. Tazare J; Smeeth L; Evans SJW; Williamson E; Douglas IJ Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2020 Nov; 29(11):1373-1381. PubMed ID: 32926504 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Propensity score methods to control for confounding in observational cohort studies: a statistical primer and application to endoscopy research. Yang JY; Webster-Clark M; Lund JL; Sandler RS; Dellon ES; Stürmer T Gastrointest Endosc; 2019 Sep; 90(3):360-369. PubMed ID: 31051156 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Unicompartmental compared with total knee replacement for patients with multimorbidities: a cohort study using propensity score stratification and inverse probability weighting. Prats-Uribe A; Kolovos S; Berencsi K; Carr A; Judge A; Silman A; Arden N; Petersen I; Douglas IJ; Wilkinson JM; Murray D; Valderas JM; Beard DJ; Lamb SE; Ali MS; Pinedo-Villanueva R; Strauss VY; Prieto-Alhambra D Health Technol Assess; 2021 Nov; 25(66):1-126. PubMed ID: 34812138 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Effects of aggregation of drug and diagnostic codes on the performance of the high-dimensional propensity score algorithm: an empirical example. Le HV; Poole C; Brookhart MA; Schoenbach VJ; Beach KJ; Layton JB; Stürmer T BMC Med Res Methodol; 2013 Nov; 13():142. PubMed ID: 24245772 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. A comparison of approaches for stratifying on the propensity score to reduce bias. Linden A J Eval Clin Pract; 2017 Aug; 23(4):690-696. PubMed ID: 28074629 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Evaluating the impact of unmeasured confounding with internal validation data: an example cost evaluation in type 2 diabetes. Faries D; Peng X; Pawaskar M; Price K; Stamey JD; Seaman JW Value Health; 2013; 16(2):259-66. PubMed ID: 23538177 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Use of Propensity Scoring and Its Application to Real-World Data: Advantages, Disadvantages, and Methodological Objectives Explained to Researchers Without Using Mathematical Equations. Franchetti Y J Clin Pharmacol; 2022 Mar; 62(3):304-319. PubMed ID: 34671990 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]