172 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28460857)
1. Adjusting for unmeasured confounding in nonrandomized longitudinal studies: a methodological review.
Streeter AJ; Lin NX; Crathorne L; Haasova M; Hyde C; Melzer D; Henley WE
J Clin Epidemiol; 2017 Jul; 87():23-34. PubMed ID: 28460857
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Adjusting for unmeasured spatial confounding with distance adjusted propensity score matching.
Papadogeorgou G; Choirat C; Zigler CM
Biostatistics; 2019 Apr; 20(2):256-272. PubMed ID: 29365040
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Quantitative bias analysis in practice: review of software for regression with unmeasured confounding.
Kawabata E; Tilling K; Groenwold RHH; Hughes RA
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2023 May; 23(1):111. PubMed ID: 37142961
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A Cautionary Note on Using Propensity Score Calibration to Control for Unmeasured Confounding Bias When the Surrogacy Assumption Is Absent.
Wan F
Am J Epidemiol; 2024 Feb; 193(2):360-369. PubMed ID: 37759344
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Negative controls: Concepts and caveats.
Penning de Vries BB; Groenwold RH
Stat Methods Med Res; 2023 Aug; 32(8):1576-1587. PubMed ID: 37338976
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Addressing unmeasured confounders in cohort studies: Instrumental variable method for a time-fixed exposure on an outcome trajectory.
Le Bourdonnec K; Samieri C; Tzourio C; Mura T; Mishra A; Trégouët DA; Proust-Lima C
Biom J; 2024 Jan; 66(1):e2200358. PubMed ID: 38098309
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The use of the E-value for sensitivity analysis.
Chung WT; Chung KC
J Clin Epidemiol; 2023 Nov; 163():92-94. PubMed ID: 37783401
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Comparing the performance of two-stage residual inclusion methods when using physician's prescribing preference as an instrumental variable: unmeasured confounding and noncollapsibility.
Zhang L; Lewsey J
J Comp Eff Res; 2024 May; 13(5):e230085. PubMed ID: 38567965
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Evaluating possible confounding by prescriber in comparative effectiveness research.
Franklin JM; Schneeweiss S; Huybrechts KF; Glynn RJ
Epidemiology; 2015 Mar; 26(2):238-41. PubMed ID: 25643103
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Weighted estimators of the complier average causal effect on restricted mean survival time with observed instrument-outcome confounders.
Dharmarajan SH; Li Y; Lehmann D; Schaubel DE
Biom J; 2021 Apr; 63(4):712-724. PubMed ID: 33346382
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Conditional cross-design synthesis estimators for generalizability in Medicaid.
Degtiar I; Layton T; Wallace J; Rose S
Biometrics; 2023 Dec; 79(4):3859-3872. PubMed ID: 37018228
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The ACCE method: an approach for obtaining quantitative or qualitative estimates of residual confounding that includes unmeasured confounding.
Smith EG
F1000Res; 2014; 3():187. PubMed ID: 25580226
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Single proxy control.
Park C; Richardson DB; Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ
Biometrics; 2024 Mar; 80(2):. PubMed ID: 38646999
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. How to compare instrumental variable and conventional regression analyses using negative controls and bias plots.
Davies NM; Thomas KH; Taylor AE; Taylor GMJ; Martin RM; Munafò MR; Windmeijer F
Int J Epidemiol; 2017 Dec; 46(6):2067-2077. PubMed ID: 28398582
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A new method to address unmeasured confounding of mortality in observational studies.
Tannen R; Yu M
Learn Health Syst; 2017 Jan; 1(1):e10016. PubMed ID: 31245553
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Understanding the impact of non-shared unmeasured confounding on the sibling comparison analysis.
Esen BÖ; Ehrenstein V; Petersen I; Sørensen HT; Pedersen L
Int J Epidemiol; 2024 Feb; 53(1):. PubMed ID: 38110565
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Methodological Challenges When Studying Distance to Care as an Exposure in Health Research.
Caniglia EC; Zash R; Swanson SA; Wirth KE; Diseko M; Mayondi G; Lockman S; Mmalane M; Makhema J; Dryden-Peterson S; Kponee-Shovein KZ; John O; Murray EJ; Shapiro RL
Am J Epidemiol; 2019 Sep; 188(9):1674-1681. PubMed ID: 31107529
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
