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 *

239 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29101596)

  • 1. Case-control matching: effects, misconceptions, and recommendations.
    Mansournia MA; Jewell NP; Greenland S
    Eur J Epidemiol; 2018 Jan; 33(1):5-14. PubMed ID: 29101596
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Longitudinal Studies 4: Matching Strategies to Evaluate Risk.
    James MT
    Methods Mol Biol; 2021; 2249():167-177. PubMed ID: 33871843
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Matched designs and causal diagrams.
    Mansournia MA; Hernán MA; Greenland S
    Int J Epidemiol; 2013 Jun; 42(3):860-9. PubMed ID: 23918854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. [Matching in observational research: from the directed acyclic graph perspective].
    Luo T; Wang L; Tian T; Fu WH; Pei HL; Zheng YJ; Dai JH
    Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi; 2021 Apr; 42(4):740-744. PubMed ID: 34814461
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Selection of controls in case-control studies. III. Design options.
    Wacholder S; Silverman DT; McLaughlin JK; Mandel JS
    Am J Epidemiol; 1992 May; 135(9):1042-50. PubMed ID: 1595690
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. On the use and misuse of scalar scores of confounders in design and analysis of observational studies.
    Pfeiffer RM; Riedl R
    Stat Med; 2015 Aug; 34(18):2618-35. PubMed ID: 25781579
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Ignoring the matching variables in cohort studies - when is it valid and why?
    Sjölander A; Greenland S
    Stat Med; 2013 Nov; 32(27):4696-708. PubMed ID: 23761197
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Double-robust estimation of an exposure-outcome odds ratio adjusting for confounding in cohort and case-control studies.
    Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ; Rotnitzky A
    Stat Med; 2011 Feb; 30(4):335-47. PubMed ID: 21225896
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Exchangeability in the case-crossover design.
    Mittleman MA; Mostofsky E
    Int J Epidemiol; 2014 Oct; 43(5):1645-55. PubMed ID: 24756878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Matching.
    Costanza MC
    Prev Med; 1995 Sep; 24(5):425-33. PubMed ID: 8524715
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Matched Versus Unmatched Analysis of Matched Case-Control Studies.
    Wan F; Colditz GA; Sutcliffe S
    Am J Epidemiol; 2021 Sep; 190(9):1859-1866. PubMed ID: 33693492
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Sibling comparison designs: bias from non-shared confounders and measurement error.
    Frisell T; Öberg S; Kuja-Halkola R; Sjölander A
    Epidemiology; 2012 Sep; 23(5):713-20. PubMed ID: 22781362
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Matching, an appealing method to avoid confounding?
    de Graaf MA; Jager KJ; Zoccali C; Dekker FW
    Nephron Clin Pract; 2011; 118(4):c315-8. PubMed ID: 21293153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A comparison of different matching designs in case-control studies: an empirical example using continuous exposures, continuous confounders and incidence of myocardial infarction.
    Friedlander Y; Merom DL; Kark JD
    Stat Med; 1993 Jun; 12(11):993-1004. PubMed ID: 8341869
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Future cases as present controls to adjust for exposure trend bias in case-only studies.
    Wang S; Linkletter C; Maclure M; Dore D; Mor V; Buka S; Wellenius GA
    Epidemiology; 2011 Jul; 22(4):568-74. PubMed ID: 21577117
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Longitudinal studies 4: Matching strategies to evaluate risk.
    James MT
    Methods Mol Biol; 2015; 1281():133-43. PubMed ID: 25694307
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The impact of residual and unmeasured confounding in epidemiologic studies: a simulation study.
    Fewell Z; Davey Smith G; Sterne JA
    Am J Epidemiol; 2007 Sep; 166(6):646-55. PubMed ID: 17615092
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Matching on provider is risky.
    Walker AM
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2013 Aug; 66(8 Suppl):S65-8. PubMed ID: 23849156
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. One-to-many propensity score matching in cohort studies.
    Rassen JA; Shelat AA; Myers J; Glynn RJ; Rothman KJ; Schneeweiss S
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2012 May; 21 Suppl 2():69-80. PubMed ID: 22552982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.