555 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29284414)
41. Meta-analysis in medical research: potentials and limitations.
Zwahlen M; Renehan A; Egger M
Urol Oncol; 2008; 26(3):320-9. PubMed ID: 18452828
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Bias, Confounding, and Interaction: Lions and Tigers, and Bears, Oh My!
Vetter TR; Mascha EJ
Anesth Analg; 2017 Sep; 125(3):1042-1048. PubMed ID: 28817531
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. A graphical model approach to systematically missing data in meta-analysis of observational studies.
Kovačić J; Varnai VM
Stat Med; 2016 Oct; 35(24):4443-4458. PubMed ID: 27311701
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Comparison of effect estimates from a meta-analysis of summary data from published studies and from a meta-analysis using individual patient data for ovarian cancer studies.
Steinberg KK; Smith SJ; Stroup DF; Olkin I; Lee NC; Williamson GD; Thacker SB
Am J Epidemiol; 1997 May; 145(10):917-25. PubMed ID: 9149663
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. 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]
46. Passive Smoking and Breast Cancer Risk among Non-Smoking Women: A Case-Control Study in China.
Li B; Wang L; Lu MS; Mo XF; Lin FY; Ho SC; Zhang CX
PLoS One; 2015; 10(4):e0125894. PubMed ID: 25915759
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Methods for the bias adjustment of meta-analyses of published observational studies.
Doi SA; Barendregt JJ; Onitilo AA
J Eval Clin Pract; 2013 Aug; 19(4):653-7. PubMed ID: 22845171
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. What to add to nothing? Use and avoidance of continuity corrections in meta-analysis of sparse data.
Sweeting MJ; Sutton AJ; Lambert PC
Stat Med; 2004 May; 23(9):1351-75. PubMed ID: 15116347
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: part 6. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies.
Manchikanti L; Datta S; Smith HS; Hirsch JA
Pain Physician; 2009; 12(5):819-50. PubMed ID: 19787009
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Association between pacifier use and breast-feeding, sudden infant death syndrome, infection and dental malocclusion.
Callaghan A; Kendall G; Lock C; Mahony A; Payne J; Verrier L
Int J Evid Based Healthc; 2005 Jul; 3(6):147-67. PubMed ID: 21631747
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Epidemiologic studies: pitfalls in interpretation.
Westhoff CL
Dialogues Contracept; 1995; 4(5):5-6, 8. PubMed ID: 12288680
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Differential effect of NAT2 on the association between active and passive smoke exposure and breast cancer risk.
Chang-Claude J; Kropp S; Jäger B; Bartsch H; Risch A
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2002 Aug; 11(8):698-704. PubMed ID: 12163321
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Parental smoking and childhood obesity: higher effect estimates for maternal smoking in pregnancy compared with paternal smoking--a meta-analysis.
Riedel C; Schönberger K; Yang S; Koshy G; Chen YC; Gopinath B; Ziebarth S; von Kries R
Int J Epidemiol; 2014 Oct; 43(5):1593-606. PubMed ID: 25080528
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. Ten questions to consider when interpreting results of a meta-epidemiological study-the MetaBLIND study as a case.
Moustgaard H; Jones HE; Savović J; Clayton GL; Sterne JA; Higgins JP; Hróbjartsson A
Res Synth Methods; 2020 Mar; 11(2):260-274. PubMed ID: 31851427
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Research methods for meta-analyses.
Pace NL
Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol; 2011 Dec; 25(4):523-33. PubMed ID: 22099918
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Identification of confounders in the assessment of the relationship between lead exposure and child development.
Tong IS; Lu Y
Ann Epidemiol; 2001 Jan; 11(1):38-45. PubMed ID: 11164118
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Clinical trials: how to assess confounding and why so.
Cleophas TJ; Zwinderman AH
Curr Clin Pharmacol; 2007 May; 2(2):129-33. PubMed ID: 18690860
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. A comparison of estimators from self-controlled case series, case-crossover design, and sequence symmetry analysis for pharmacoepidemiological studies.
Takeuchi Y; Shinozaki T; Matsuyama Y
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2018 Jan; 18(1):4. PubMed ID: 29310575
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Primary versus secondary source of data in observational studies and heterogeneity in meta-analyses of drug effects: a survey of major medical journals.
Prada-Ramallal G; Roque F; Herdeiro MT; Takkouche B; Figueiras A
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2018 Sep; 18(1):97. PubMed ID: 30261846
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. 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]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
