421 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29399833)
1. Testing causal effects in observational survival data using propensity score matching design.
Lu B; Cai D; Tong X
Stat Med; 2018 May; 37(11):1846-1858. PubMed ID: 29399833
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. High-dimensional propensity score algorithm in comparative effectiveness research with time-varying interventions.
Neugebauer R; Schmittdiel JA; Zhu Z; Rassen JA; Seeger JD; Schneeweiss S
Stat Med; 2015 Feb; 34(5):753-81. PubMed ID: 25488047
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. A comparison of Bayesian and Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis for unmeasured confounding.
McCandless LC; Gustafson P
Stat Med; 2017 Aug; 36(18):2887-2901. PubMed ID: 28386994
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Comparisons of the performance of different statistical tests for time-to-event analysis with confounding factors: practical illustrations in kidney transplantation.
Le Borgne F; Giraudeau B; Querard AH; Giral M; Foucher Y
Stat Med; 2016 Mar; 35(7):1103-16. PubMed ID: 26514380
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation for Causal Inference in Observational Studies.
Schuler MS; Rose S
Am J Epidemiol; 2017 Jan; 185(1):65-73. PubMed ID: 27941068
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. An evaluation of bias in propensity score-adjusted non-linear regression models.
Wan F; Mitra N
Stat Methods Med Res; 2018 Mar; 27(3):846-862. PubMed ID: 27095754
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Propensity score matching for estimating a marginal hazard ratio.
Wang T; Zhao H; Yang S; Tang S; Cui Z; Li L; Faries DE
Stat Med; 2024 Jun; 43(14):2783-2810. PubMed ID: 38705726
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. How to control for unmeasured confounding in an observational time-to-event study with exposure incidence information: the treatment choice Cox model.
Troendle J; Leifer E; Zhang Z; Yang S; Tewes H
Stat Med; 2017 Oct; 36(23):3654-3669. PubMed ID: 28675922
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Adjustment for time-dependent unmeasured confounders in marginal structural Cox models using validation sample data.
Burne RM; Abrahamowicz M
Stat Methods Med Res; 2019 Feb; 28(2):357-371. PubMed ID: 28835193
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Using Sensitivity Analyses for Unobserved Confounding to Address Covariate Measurement Error in Propensity Score Methods.
Rudolph KE; Stuart EA
Am J Epidemiol; 2018 Mar; 187(3):604-613. PubMed ID: 28992211
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Confounding, causality, and confusion: the role of intermediate variables in interpreting observational studies in obstetrics.
Ananth CV; Schisterman EF
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2017 Aug; 217(2):167-175. PubMed ID: 28427805
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparing methods for estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects using observational data from health care databases.
Wendling T; Jung K; Callahan A; Schuler A; Shah NH; Gallego B
Stat Med; 2018 Oct; 37(23):3309-3324. PubMed ID: 29862536
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Bias associated with using the estimated propensity score as a regression covariate.
Hade EM; Lu B
Stat Med; 2014 Jan; 33(1):74-87. PubMed ID: 23787715
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
