502 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31366331)
1. 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]
2. Adjustment for unmeasured confounding through informative priors for the confounder-outcome relation.
Groenwold RHH; Shofty I; Miočević M; van Smeden M; Klugkist I
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2018 Dec; 18(1):174. PubMed ID: 30577773
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Sensitivity analysis for the effects of multiple unmeasured confounders.
Groenwold RH; Sterne JA; Lawlor DA; Moons KG; Hoes AW; Tilling K
Ann Epidemiol; 2016 Sep; 26(9):605-11. PubMed ID: 27576907
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. [Confounder adjustment in observational comparative effectiveness researches: (2) statistical adjustment approaches for unmeasured confounders].
Huang LL; Wei YY; Chen F
Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi; 2019 Nov; 40(11):1450-1455. PubMed ID: 31838820
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Prior event rate ratio adjustment: numerical studies of a statistical method to address unrecognized confounding in observational studies.
Yu M; Xie D; Wang X; Weiner MG; Tannen RL
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2012 May; 21 Suppl 2():60-8. PubMed ID: 22552981
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. Magnitude and direction of missing confounders had different consequences on treatment effect estimation in propensity score analysis.
Nguyen TL; Collins GS; Spence J; Fontaine C; Daurès JP; Devereaux PJ; Landais P; Le Manach Y
J Clin Epidemiol; 2017 Jul; 87():87-97. PubMed ID: 28412467
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Sensitivity analysis of treatment effect to unmeasured confounding in observational studies with survival and competing risks outcomes.
Huang R; Xu R; Dulai PS
Stat Med; 2020 Oct; 39(24):3397-3411. PubMed ID: 32677758
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. [Sensitivity analysis method for unmeasured confounding interference in observational study].
Wang DH; You DF; Huang LL; Zhao Y
Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi; 2019 Nov; 40(11):1470-1475. PubMed ID: 31838823
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Comparing g-computation, propensity score-based weighting, and targeted maximum likelihood estimation for analyzing externally controlled trials with both measured and unmeasured confounders: a simulation study.
Ren J; Cislo P; Cappelleri JC; Hlavacek P; DiBonaventura M
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2023 Jan; 23(1):18. PubMed ID: 36647031
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. "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]
18. Estimating Bias Due to Unmeasured Confounding in Oral Health Epidemiology.
Mittinty MN
Community Dent Health; 2020 Feb; 37(1):84-89. PubMed ID: 32031350
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Treatment effects in the presence of unmeasured confounding: dealing with observations in the tails of the propensity score distribution--a simulation study.
Stürmer T; Rothman KJ; Avorn J; Glynn RJ
Am J Epidemiol; 2010 Oct; 172(7):843-54. PubMed ID: 20716704
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Assessing the impact of unmeasured confounders for credible and reliable real-world evidence.
Zhang X; Stamey JD; Mathur MB
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2020 Oct; 29(10):1219-1227. PubMed ID: 32929830
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
