182 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28412467)
1. Magnitude and direction of missing confounders had different consequences on treatment effect estimation in propensity score analysis.
Nguyen TL; Collins GS; Spence J; Fontaine C; Daurès JP; Devereaux PJ; Landais P; Le Manach Y
J Clin Epidemiol; 2017 Jul; 87():87-97. PubMed ID: 28412467
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: a Monte Carlo study.
Austin PC; Grootendorst P; Anderson GM
Stat Med; 2007 Feb; 26(4):734-53. PubMed ID: 16708349
[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. 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]
5. Comparing g-computation, propensity score-based weighting, and targeted maximum likelihood estimation for analyzing externally controlled trials with both measured and unmeasured confounders: a simulation study.
Ren J; Cislo P; Cappelleri JC; Hlavacek P; DiBonaventura M
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2023 Jan; 23(1):18. PubMed ID: 36647031
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Unknown confounders did not bias the treatment effect when improving balance of known confounders in randomized trials.
Kuss O; Miller M
J Clin Epidemiol; 2020 Oct; 126():9-16. PubMed ID: 32540383
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Propensity Score Weighting and Trimming Strategies for Reducing Variance and Bias of Treatment Effect Estimates: A Simulation Study.
Stürmer T; Webster-Clark M; Lund JL; Wyss R; Ellis AR; Lunt M; Rothman KJ; Glynn RJ
Am J Epidemiol; 2021 Aug; 190(8):1659-1670. PubMed ID: 33615349
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Controlling for confounding via propensity score methods can result in biased estimation of the conditional AUC: A simulation study.
Galadima HI; McClish DK
Pharm Stat; 2019 Oct; 18(5):568-582. PubMed ID: 31111682
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Can statistic adjustment of OR minimize the potential confounding bias for meta-analysis of case-control study? A secondary data analysis.
Liu T; Nie X; Wu Z; Zhang Y; Feng G; Cai S; Lv Y; Peng X
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Dec; 17(1):179. PubMed ID: 29284414
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal hazard ratios.
Austin PC
Stat Med; 2013 Jul; 32(16):2837-49. PubMed ID: 23239115
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The impact of moderator by confounder interactions in the assessment of treatment effect modification: a simulation study.
Marsden AM; Dixon WG; Dunn G; Emsley R
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2022 Apr; 22(1):88. PubMed ID: 35369866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Assessment of the E-value in the presence of bias amplification: a simulation study.
Barrette E; Higuera L; Wherry K
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2024 Mar; 24(1):79. PubMed ID: 38539082
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Propensity score applied to survival data analysis through proportional hazards models: a Monte Carlo study.
Gayat E; Resche-Rigon M; Mary JY; Porcher R
Pharm Stat; 2012; 11(3):222-9. PubMed ID: 22411785
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The performance of different propensity-score methods for estimating differences in proportions (risk differences or absolute risk reductions) in observational studies.
Austin PC
Stat Med; 2010 Sep; 29(20):2137-48. PubMed ID: 20108233
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. High-dimensional mediation analysis for continuous outcome with confounders using overlap weighting method in observational epigenetic study.
Hu W; Chen S; Cai J; Yang Y; Yan H; Chen F
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2024 Jun; 24(1):125. PubMed ID: 38831262
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Estimating the effect of treatment on binary outcomes using full matching on the propensity score.
Austin PC; Stuart EA
Stat Methods Med Res; 2017 Dec; 26(6):2505-2525. PubMed ID: 26329750
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
