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.
2. Adjusting for Confounding in Early Postlaunch Settings: Going Beyond Logistic Regression Models. Schmidt AF; Klungel OH; Groenwold RH; Epidemiology; 2016 Jan; 27(1):133-42. PubMed ID: 26436519 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Adjusted horizontal stacked bar graphs ("Grotta bars") for consistent presentation of observational stroke study results. Rohmann JL; Huerta-Gutierrez R; Audebert HJ; Kurth T; Piccininni M Eur Stroke J; 2023 Mar; 8(1):370-379. PubMed ID: 37021164 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Should a propensity score model be super? The utility of ensemble procedures for causal adjustment. Alam S; Moodie EEM; Stephens DA Stat Med; 2019 Apr; 38(9):1690-1702. PubMed ID: 30586681 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparison of logistic regression versus propensity score when the number of events is low and there are multiple confounders. Cepeda MS; Boston R; Farrar JT; Strom BL Am J Epidemiol; 2003 Aug; 158(3):280-7. PubMed ID: 12882951 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A Propensity-score-based Fine Stratification Approach for Confounding Adjustment When Exposure Is Infrequent. Desai RJ; Rothman KJ; Bateman BT; Hernandez-Diaz S; Huybrechts KF Epidemiology; 2017 Mar; 28(2):249-257. PubMed ID: 27922533 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Propensity Score Weighting and Trimming Strategies for Reducing Variance and Bias of Treatment Effect Estimates: A Simulation Study. Stürmer T; Webster-Clark M; Lund JL; Wyss R; Ellis AR; Lunt M; Rothman KJ; Glynn RJ Am J Epidemiol; 2021 Aug; 190(8):1659-1670. PubMed ID: 33615349 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Controlling for confounding via propensity score methods can result in biased estimation of the conditional AUC: A simulation study. Galadima HI; McClish DK Pharm Stat; 2019 Oct; 18(5):568-582. PubMed ID: 31111682 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Prognostic score-based balance measures can be a useful diagnostic for propensity score methods in comparative effectiveness research. Stuart EA; Lee BK; Leacy FP J Clin Epidemiol; 2013 Aug; 66(8 Suppl):S84-S90.e1. PubMed ID: 23849158 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Quantile Stratification Based on a Misspecified Propensity Score in Longitudinal Treatment Effectiveness Analyses of Ordinal Doses. Leon AC; Hedeker D Comput Stat Data Anal; 2007 Aug; 51(12):6114-6122. PubMed ID: 18037978 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Noncollapsibility and its role in quantifying confounding bias in logistic regression. Schuster NA; Twisk JWR; Ter Riet G; Heymans MW; Rijnhart JJM BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 Jul; 21(1):136. PubMed ID: 34225653 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The Impact of Nondifferential Exposure Misclassification on the Performance of Propensity Scores for Continuous and Binary Outcomes: A Simulation Study. Wood ME; Chrysanthopoulou S; Nordeng HME; Lapane KL Med Care; 2018 Aug; 56(8):e46-e53. PubMed ID: 28922298 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Studies with many covariates and few outcomes: selecting covariates and implementing propensity-score-based confounding adjustments. Patorno E; Glynn RJ; Hernández-Díaz S; Liu J; Schneeweiss S Epidemiology; 2014 Mar; 25(2):268-78. PubMed ID: 24487209 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Covariance adjustment on propensity parameters for continuous treatment in linear models. Yang W; Joffe MM; Hennessy S; Feldman HI Stat Med; 2014 Nov; 33(26):4577-89. PubMed ID: 25042626 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Confounder-adjusted estimates of the risk difference using propensity score-based weighting. Ukoumunne OC; Williamson E; Forbes AB; Gulliford MC; Carlin JB Stat Med; 2010 Dec; 29(30):3126-36. PubMed ID: 21170907 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Estimators and confidence intervals for the marginal odds ratio using logistic regression and propensity score stratification. Stampf S; Graf E; Schmoor C; Schumacher M Stat Med; 2010 Mar; 29(7-8):760-9. PubMed ID: 20213703 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Variable Selection for Confounding Adjustment in High-dimensional Covariate Spaces When Analyzing Healthcare Databases. Schneeweiss S; Eddings W; Glynn RJ; Patorno E; Rassen J; Franklin JM Epidemiology; 2017 Mar; 28(2):237-248. PubMed ID: 27779497 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Inclusion of binary proxy variables in logistic regression improves treatment effect estimation in observational studies in the presence of binary unmeasured confounding variables. Rosenbaum C; Yu Q; Buzhardt S; Sutton E; Chapple AG Pharm Stat; 2023; 22(6):995-1015. PubMed ID: 37986712 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]