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 *

285 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31512265)

  • 1. Avoiding pitfalls when combining multiple imputation and propensity scores.
    Granger E; Sergeant JC; Lunt M
    Stat Med; 2019 Nov; 38(26):5120-5132. PubMed ID: 31512265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Propensity score analysis with partially observed covariates: How should multiple imputation be used?
    Leyrat C; Seaman SR; White IR; Douglas I; Smeeth L; Kim J; Resche-Rigon M; Carpenter JR; Williamson EJ
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2019 Jan; 28(1):3-19. PubMed ID: 28573919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A comparison of two methods of estimating propensity scores after multiple imputation.
    Mitra R; Reiter JP
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2016 Feb; 25(1):188-204. PubMed ID: 22687877
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A comparison of different methods to handle missing data in the context of propensity score analysis.
    Choi J; Dekkers OM; le Cessie S
    Eur J Epidemiol; 2019 Jan; 34(1):23-36. PubMed ID: 30341708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of methods for handling covariate missingness in propensity score estimation with a binary exposure.
    Coffman DL; Zhou J; Cai X
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2020 Jun; 20(1):168. PubMed ID: 32586271
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Propensity score matching after multiple imputation when a confounder has missing data.
    Ségalas C; Leyrat C; Carpenter JR; Williamson E
    Stat Med; 2023 Mar; 42(7):1082-1095. PubMed ID: 36695043
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparison of balancing scores using the ANCOVA approach for estimating average treatment effect: a simulation study.
    Tu C; Koh WY
    J Biopharm Stat; 2019; 29(3):508-515. PubMed ID: 30561245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Bias and Precision of the "Multiple Imputation, Then Deletion" Method for Dealing With Missing Outcome Data.
    Sullivan TR; Salter AB; Ryan P; Lee KJ
    Am J Epidemiol; 2015 Sep; 182(6):528-34. PubMed ID: 26337075
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Performance evaluation of regression splines for propensity score adjustment in post-market safety analysis with multiple treatments.
    Tian Y; Baro E; Zhang R
    J Biopharm Stat; 2019; 29(5):810-821. PubMed ID: 31502924
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Review: a gentle introduction to imputation of missing values.
    Donders AR; van der Heijden GJ; Stijnen T; Moons KG
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2006 Oct; 59(10):1087-91. PubMed ID: 16980149
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Double propensity-score adjustment: A solution to design bias or bias due to incomplete matching.
    Austin PC
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2017 Feb; 26(1):201-222. PubMed ID: 25038071
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The use of bootstrapping when using propensity-score matching without replacement: a simulation study.
    Austin PC; Small DS
    Stat Med; 2014 Oct; 33(24):4306-19. PubMed ID: 25087884
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Multiple imputation for missing values through conditional Semiparametric odds ratio models.
    Chen HY; Xie H; Qian Y
    Biometrics; 2011 Sep; 67(3):799-809. PubMed ID: 21210771
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Propensity Score Analysis with Partially Observed Baseline Covariates: A Practical Comparison of Methods for Handling Missing Data.
    Bottigliengo D; Lorenzoni G; Ocagli H; Martinato M; Berchialla P; Gregori D
    Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2021 Jun; 18(13):. PubMed ID: 34206234
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Assessment of predictive performance in incomplete data by combining internal validation and multiple imputation.
    Wahl S; Boulesteix AL; Zierer A; Thorand B; van de Wiel MA
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2016 Oct; 16(1):144. PubMed ID: 27782817
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Type I error rates, coverage of confidence intervals, and variance estimation in propensity-score matched analyses.
    Austin PC
    Int J Biostat; 2009 Apr; 5(1):Article 13. PubMed ID: 20949126
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparison of the ability of double-robust estimators to correct bias in propensity score matching analysis. A Monte Carlo simulation study.
    Nguyen TL; Collins GS; Spence J; Devereaux PJ; Daurès JP; Landais P; Le Manach Y
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2017 Dec; 26(12):1513-1519. PubMed ID: 28984050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A latent class model to multiply impute missing treatment indicators in observational studies when inferences of the treatment effect are made using propensity score matching.
    Mitra R
    Biom J; 2023 Mar; 65(3):e2100284. PubMed ID: 36418159
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Missing confounding data in marginal structural models: a comparison of inverse probability weighting and multiple imputation.
    Moodie EE; Delaney JA; Lefebvre G; Platt RW
    Int J Biostat; 2008; 4(1):Article 13. PubMed ID: 22462119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Propensity score estimation with missing values using a multiple imputation missingness pattern (MIMP) approach.
    Qu Y; Lipkovich I
    Stat Med; 2009 Apr; 28(9):1402-14. PubMed ID: 19222021
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 15.