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 *

197 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28408854)

  • 1. Control of confounding in the analysis phase - an overview for clinicians.
    Kahlert J; Gribsholt SB; Gammelager H; Dekkers OM; Luta G
    Clin Epidemiol; 2017; 9():195-204. PubMed ID: 28408854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.
    Crider K; Williams J; Qi YP; Gutman J; Yeung L; Mai C; Finkelstain J; Mehta S; Pons-Duran C; Menéndez C; Moraleda C; Rogers L; Daniels K; Green P
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2022 Feb; 2(2022):. PubMed ID: 36321557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Use and Interpretation of Propensity Scores in Aging Research: A Guide for Clinical Researchers.
    Kim DH; Pieper CF; Ahmed A; Colón-Emeric CS
    J Am Geriatr Soc; 2016 Oct; 64(10):2065-2073. PubMed ID: 27550392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Statistical primer: propensity score matching and its alternatives.
    Benedetto U; Head SJ; Angelini GD; Blackstone EH
    Eur J Cardiothorac Surg; 2018 Jun; 53(6):1112-1117. PubMed ID: 29684154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Illustration of the Impact of Unmeasured Confounding Within an Economic Evaluation Based on Nonrandomized Data.
    Guertin JR; Bowen JM; De Rose G; O'Reilly DJ; Tarride JE
    MDM Policy Pract; 2017; 2(1):2381468317697711. PubMed ID: 30288418
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. A comparison of confounder selection and adjustment methods for estimating causal effects using large healthcare databases.
    Benasseur I; Talbot D; Durand M; Holbrook A; Matteau A; Potter BJ; Renoux C; Schnitzer ME; Tarride JÉ; Guertin JR
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2022 Apr; 31(4):424-433. PubMed ID: 34953160
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Methods to control for unmeasured confounding in pharmacoepidemiology: an overview.
    Uddin MJ; Groenwold RH; Ali MS; de Boer A; Roes KC; Chowdhury MA; Klungel OH
    Int J Clin Pharm; 2016 Jun; 38(3):714-23. PubMed ID: 27091131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Covariate selection in high-dimensional propensity score analyses of treatment effects in small samples.
    Rassen JA; Glynn RJ; Brookhart MA; Schneeweiss S
    Am J Epidemiol; 2011 Jun; 173(12):1404-13. PubMed ID: 21602301
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Patient-reported outcomes as hospital performance measures: the challenge of confounding and how to handle it.
    Kristensen PK; Johnsen SP
    Int J Qual Health Care; 2022 Mar; 34(Supplement_1):ii59-ii64. PubMed ID: 35357444
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Merits and caveats of propensity scores to adjust for confounding.
    Fu EL; Groenwold RHH; Zoccali C; Jager KJ; van Diepen M; Dekker FW
    Nephrol Dial Transplant; 2019 Oct; 34(10):1629-1635. PubMed ID: 30215791
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Studies with many covariates and few outcomes: selecting covariates and implementing propensity-score-based confounding adjustments.
    Patorno E; Glynn RJ; Hernández-Díaz S; Liu J; Schneeweiss S
    Epidemiology; 2014 Mar; 25(2):268-78. PubMed ID: 24487209
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Confounding adjustment in observational studies on cardiothoracic interventions: a systematic review of methodological practice.
    Velders BJJ; Boltje JWT; Vriesendorp MD; Klautz RJM; Le Cessie S; Groenwold RHH
    Eur J Cardiothorac Surg; 2023 Oct; 64(4):. PubMed ID: 37505476
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [Propensity scores in observational research].
    Groenwold RH
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2013; 157(29):A6179. PubMed ID: 23859107
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparing treatment effects after adjustment with multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression and propensity score methods.
    Martens EP; de Boer A; Pestman WR; Belitser SV; Stricker BH; Klungel OH
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2008 Jan; 17(1):1-8. PubMed ID: 17960554
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Confounding adjustment in the analysis of augmented randomized controlled trial with hybrid control arm.
    Li L; Jemielita T
    Stat Med; 2023 Jul; 42(16):2855-2872. PubMed ID: 37186394
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Reporting of covariate selection and balance assessment in propensity score analysis is suboptimal: a systematic review.
    Ali MS; Groenwold RH; Belitser SV; Pestman WR; Hoes AW; Roes KC; Boer Ad; Klungel OH
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 Feb; 68(2):112-21. PubMed ID: 25433444
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Martingale residual-based method to control for confounders measured only in a validation sample in time-to-event analysis.
    Burne RM; Abrahamowicz M
    Stat Med; 2016 Nov; 35(25):4588-4606. PubMed ID: 27306611
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.