317 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28169934)
1. Instrumental Variable Analyses and Selection Bias.
Canan C; Lesko C; Lau B
Epidemiology; 2017 May; 28(3):396-398. PubMed ID: 28169934
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. On a preference-based instrumental variable approach in reducing unmeasured confounding-by-indication.
Li Y; Lee Y; Wolfe RA; Morgenstern H; Zhang J; Port FK; Robinson BM
Stat Med; 2015 Mar; 34(7):1150-68. PubMed ID: 25546152
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Instrumental variables and inverse probability weighting for causal inference from longitudinal observational studies.
Hogan JW; Lancaster T
Stat Methods Med Res; 2004 Feb; 13(1):17-48. PubMed ID: 14746439
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Selection Bias When Estimating Average Treatment Effects Using One-sample Instrumental Variable Analysis.
Hughes RA; Davies NM; Davey Smith G; Tilling K
Epidemiology; 2019 May; 30(3):350-357. PubMed ID: 30896457
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A tutorial on the use of instrumental variables in pharmacoepidemiology.
Ertefaie A; Small DS; Flory JH; Hennessy S
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2017 Apr; 26(4):357-367. PubMed ID: 28239929
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Analysis approaches to address treatment nonadherence in pragmatic trials with point-treatment settings: a simulation study.
Hossain MB; Mosquera L; Karim ME
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2022 Feb; 22(1):46. PubMed ID: 35172746
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Unifying instrumental variable and inverse probability weighting approaches for inference of causal treatment effect and unmeasured confounding in observational studies.
Liu T; Hogan JW
Stat Methods Med Res; 2021 Mar; 30(3):671-686. PubMed ID: 33213292
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Two-stage instrumental variable methods for estimating the causal odds ratio: analysis of bias.
Cai B; Small DS; Have TR
Stat Med; 2011 Jul; 30(15):1809-24. PubMed ID: 21495062
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Implications of M bias in epidemiologic studies: a simulation study.
Liu W; Brookhart MA; Schneeweiss S; Mi X; Setoguchi S
Am J Epidemiol; 2012 Nov; 176(10):938-48. PubMed ID: 23100247
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Confounding, causality, and confusion: the role of intermediate variables in interpreting observational studies in obstetrics.
Ananth CV; Schisterman EF
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2017 Aug; 217(2):167-175. PubMed ID: 28427805
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The missing cause approach to unmeasured confounding in pharmacoepidemiology.
Abrahamowicz M; Bjerre LM; Beauchamp ME; LeLorier J; Burne R
Stat Med; 2016 Mar; 35(7):1001-16. PubMed ID: 26932124
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Bias testing, bias correction, and confounder selection using an instrumental variable model.
Yeob Choi B; Fine JP; Alan Brookhart M
Stat Med; 2020 Dec; 39(29):4386-4404. PubMed ID: 32854161
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Adjusting for bias and unmeasured confounding in Mendelian randomization studies with binary responses.
Palmer TM; Thompson JR; Tobin MD; Sheehan NA; Burton PR
Int J Epidemiol; 2008 Oct; 37(5):1161-8. PubMed ID: 18463132
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Quantifying biases in causal models: classical confounding vs collider-stratification bias.
Greenland S
Epidemiology; 2003 May; 14(3):300-6. PubMed ID: 12859030
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Contextualizing selection bias in Mendelian randomization: how bad is it likely to be?
Gkatzionis A; Burgess S
Int J Epidemiol; 2019 Jun; 48(3):691-701. PubMed ID: 30325422
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Assessing causal treatment effect estimation when using large observational datasets.
John ER; Abrams KR; Brightling CE; Sheehan NA
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Nov; 19(1):207. PubMed ID: 31726969
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Selecting on treatment: a pervasive form of bias in instrumental variable analyses.
Swanson SA; Robins JM; Miller M; Hernán MA
Am J Epidemiol; 2015 Feb; 181(3):191-7. PubMed ID: 25609096
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Instruments for causal inference: an epidemiologist's dream?
Hernán MA; Robins JM
Epidemiology; 2006 Jul; 17(4):360-72. PubMed ID: 16755261
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
