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 *

105 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30379371)

  • 1. Comparing drug effectiveness in children: A systematic review.
    Dukanovic J; Osokogu OU; Patel K; Ferrajolo C; Sturkenboom MCJM;
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2018 Dec; 27(12):1295-1301. PubMed ID: 30379371
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Pharmacoepidemiological safety studies in children: a systematic review.
    Osokogu OU; Dukanovic J; Ferrajolo C; Dodd C; Pacurariu AC; Bramer WM; 'tJong G; Weibel D; Sturkenboom MC; Kaguelidou F
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2016 Aug; 25(8):861-70. PubMed ID: 27255559
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Handling missing data in propensity score estimation in comparative effectiveness evaluations: a systematic review.
    Malla L; Perera-Salazar R; McFadden E; Ogero M; Stepniewska K; English M
    J Comp Eff Res; 2018 Mar; 7(3):271-279. PubMed ID: 28980833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Propensity score models in observational comparative effectiveness studies: cornerstone of design or statistical afterthought?
    Robinson JW
    J Comp Eff Res; 2012 Mar; 1(2):129-35. PubMed ID: 24237373
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Effects of the pharmaceutical technologic aspects of oral pediatric drugs on patient-related outcomes: a systematic literature review.
    van Riet-Nales DA; Schobben AF; Egberts TC; Rademaker CM
    Clin Ther; 2010 May; 32(5):924-38. PubMed ID: 20685501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Regulatory considerations in the design of comparative observational studies using propensity scores.
    Yue LQ
    J Biopharm Stat; 2012; 22(6):1272-9. PubMed ID: 23075022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A framework for monitoring of new drugs in Sweden.
    Cars T; Lindhagen L; Sundström J
    Ups J Med Sci; 2019 Jan; 124(1):46-50. PubMed ID: 30689485
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Systematic Literature Review of the Methods Used to Compare Newer Second-Generation Agents for the Management of Schizophrenia: A focus on Health Technology Assessment.
    Kruse G; Wong BJ; Duh MS; Lefebvre P; Lafeuille MH; Fastenau JM
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2015 Oct; 33(10):1049-67. PubMed ID: 25963579
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Review of the comparative effectiveness of radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, or expectant management of localized prostate cancer in registry data.
    Serrell EC; Pitts D; Hayn M; Beaule L; Hansen MH; Sammon JD
    Urol Oncol; 2018 Apr; 36(4):183-192. PubMed ID: 29122446
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Comparative effectiveness of different wound dressings for patients with partial-thickness burns: study protocol of a systematic review and a Bayesian framework network meta-analysis.
    Jiang Q; Chen ZH; Wang SB; Chen XD
    BMJ Open; 2017 Mar; 7(3):e013289. PubMed ID: 28336737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Applications of propensity score methods in observational comparative effectiveness and safety research: where have we come and where should we go?
    Borah BJ; Moriarty JP; Crown WH; Doshi JA
    J Comp Eff Res; 2014 Jan; 3(1):63-78. PubMed ID: 24266593
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Probabilistic bias analysis in pharmacoepidemiology and comparative effectiveness research: a systematic review.
    Hunnicutt JN; Ulbricht CM; Chrysanthopoulou SA; Lapane KL
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2016 Dec; 25(12):1343-1353. PubMed ID: 27593968
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparative effectiveness research in cancer with observational data.
    Giordano SH
    Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book; 2015; ():e330-5. PubMed ID: 25993193
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Performing both propensity score and instrumental variable analyses in observational studies often leads to discrepant results: a systematic review.
    Laborde-Castérot H; Agrinier N; Thilly N
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 Oct; 68(10):1232-40. PubMed ID: 26026496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Propensity Score-Based Methods in Comparative Effectiveness Research on Coronary Artery Disease.
    Ellis AG; Trikalinos TA; Wessler BS; Wong JB; Dahabreh IJ
    Am J Epidemiol; 2018 May; 187(5):1064-1078. PubMed ID: 28992207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The GRACE checklist for rating the quality of observational studies of comparative effectiveness: a tale of hope and caution.
    Dreyer NA; Velentgas P; Westrich K; Dubois R
    J Manag Care Spec Pharm; 2014 Mar; 20(3):301-8. PubMed ID: 24564810
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Prevalent new-user cohort designs for comparative drug effect studies by time-conditional propensity scores.
    Suissa S; Moodie EE; Dell'Aniello S
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2017 Apr; 26(4):459-468. PubMed ID: 27610604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. "A Bayesian sensitivity analysis to evaluate the impact of unmeasured confounding with external data: a real world comparative effectiveness study in osteoporosis".
    Zhang X; Faries DE; Boytsov N; Stamey JD; Seaman JW
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2016 Sep; 25(9):982-92. PubMed ID: 27396534
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Comparative safety of anti-epileptic drugs during pregnancy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of congenital malformations and prenatal outcomes.
    Veroniki AA; Cogo E; Rios P; Straus SE; Finkelstein Y; Kealey R; Reynen E; Soobiah C; Thavorn K; Hutton B; Hemmelgarn BR; Yazdi F; D'Souza J; MacDonald H; Tricco AC
    BMC Med; 2017 May; 15(1):95. PubMed ID: 28472982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.