191 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30853756)
1. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR UNMEASURED CONFOUNDING IN COARSE STRUCTURAL NESTED MEAN MODELS.
Yang S; Lok JJ
Stat Sin; 2018 Oct; 28(4):1703-1723. PubMed ID: 30853756
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Sensitivity analyses for unmeasured confounding assuming a marginal structural model for repeated measures.
Brumback BA; Hernán MA; Haneuse SJ; Robins JM
Stat Med; 2004 Mar; 23(5):749-67. PubMed ID: 14981673
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Semiparametric estimation of structural nested mean models with irregularly spaced longitudinal observations.
Yang S
Biometrics; 2022 Sep; 78(3):937-949. PubMed ID: 33870495
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The impact of unmeasured within- and between-cluster confounding on the bias of effect estimatorsof a continuous exposure.
Li Y; Lee Y; Port FK; Robinson BM
Stat Methods Med Res; 2020 Aug; 29(8):2119-2139. PubMed ID: 31694489
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Instrumental variable estimation of the marginal structural Cox model for time-varying treatments.
Cui Y; Michael H; Tanser F; Tchetgen Tchetgen E
Biometrika; 2023 Mar; 110(1):101-118. PubMed ID: 36798841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Assessing the impact of unmeasured confounding for binary outcomes using confounding functions.
Kasza J; Wolfe R; Schuster T
Int J Epidemiol; 2017 Aug; 46(4):1303-1311. PubMed ID: 28338913
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Sensitivity analysis of unmeasured confounding in causal inference based on exponential tilting and super learner.
Zhou M; Yao W
J Appl Stat; 2023; 50(3):744-760. PubMed ID: 36819084
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A comparison of methods to estimate the survivor average causal effect in the presence of missing data: a simulation study.
McGuinness MB; Kasza J; Karahalios A; Guymer RH; Finger RP; Simpson JA
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Dec; 19(1):223. PubMed ID: 31795945
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Joint mixed-effects models for causal inference with longitudinal data.
Shardell M; Ferrucci L
Stat Med; 2018 Feb; 37(5):829-846. PubMed ID: 29205454
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Impact of time to start treatment following infection with application to initiating HAART in HIV-positive patients.
Lok JJ; DeGruttola V
Biometrics; 2012 Sep; 68(3):745-54. PubMed ID: 22352840
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Adjusting for bias and unmeasured confounding in Mendelian randomization studies with binary responses.
Palmer TM; Thompson JR; Tobin MD; Sheehan NA; Burton PR
Int J Epidemiol; 2008 Oct; 37(5):1161-8. PubMed ID: 18463132
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Instrumental variables and inverse probability weighting for causal inference from longitudinal observational studies.
Hogan JW; Lancaster T
Stat Methods Med Res; 2004 Feb; 13(1):17-48. PubMed ID: 14746439
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The missing cause approach to unmeasured confounding in pharmacoepidemiology.
Abrahamowicz M; Bjerre LM; Beauchamp ME; LeLorier J; Burne R
Stat Med; 2016 Mar; 35(7):1001-16. PubMed ID: 26932124
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A FLEXIBLE SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS APPROACH FOR UNMEASURED CONFOUNDING WITH MULTIPLE TREATMENTS AND A BINARY OUTCOME WITH APPLICATION TO SEER-MEDICARE LUNG CANCER DATA.
Hu L; Zou J; Gu C; Ji J; Lopez M; Kale M
Ann Appl Stat; 2022 Jun; 16(2):1014-1037. PubMed ID: 36644682
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Sensitivity Analysis for Unmeasured Confounding in Meta-Analyses.
Mathur MB; VanderWeele TJ
J Am Stat Assoc; 2020; 115(529):163-172. PubMed ID: 32981992
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A tutorial on the use of instrumental variables in pharmacoepidemiology.
Ertefaie A; Small DS; Flory JH; Hennessy S
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2017 Apr; 26(4):357-367. PubMed ID: 28239929
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Estimating causal treatment effects from longitudinal HIV natural history studies using marginal structural models.
Ko H; Hogan JW; Mayer KH
Biometrics; 2003 Mar; 59(1):152-62. PubMed ID: 12762452
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Investigation of the structure and magnitude of time-varying uncontrolled confounding in simulated cohort data analyzed using g-computation.
Soohoo M; Arah OA
Int J Epidemiol; 2023 Dec; 52(6):1907-1913. PubMed ID: 37898996
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. G-estimation of structural nested restricted mean time lost models to estimate effects of time-varying treatments on a failure time outcome.
Hagiwara Y; Shinozaki T; Matsuyama Y
Biometrics; 2020 Sep; 76(3):799-810. PubMed ID: 31829432
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
