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 *

111 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33009100)

  • 1. Observational Research for Therapies Titrated to Effect and Associated With Severity of Illness: Misleading Results From Commonly Used Statistical Methods.
    de Grooth HJ; Girbes ARJ; van der Ven F; Oudemans-van Straaten HM; Tuinman PR; de Man AME
    Crit Care Med; 2020 Dec; 48(12):1720-1728. PubMed ID: 33009100
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. When do confounding by indication and inadequate risk adjustment bias critical care studies? A simulation study.
    Sjoding MW; Luo K; Miller MA; Iwashyna TJ
    Crit Care; 2015 Apr; 19(1):195. PubMed ID: 25925165
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Bias associated with using the estimated propensity score as a regression covariate.
    Hade EM; Lu B
    Stat Med; 2014 Jan; 33(1):74-87. PubMed ID: 23787715
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The performance of inverse probability of treatment weighting and full matching on the propensity score in the presence of model misspecification when estimating the effect of treatment on survival outcomes.
    Austin PC; Stuart EA
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2017 Aug; 26(4):1654-1670. PubMed ID: 25934643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Improving causal inference with a doubly robust estimator that combines propensity score stratification and weighting.
    Linden A
    J Eval Clin Pract; 2017 Aug; 23(4):697-702. PubMed ID: 28116816
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Association of Freestanding Children's Hospitals With Outcomes in Children With Critical Illness.
    Gupta P; Rettiganti M; Fisher PL; Chang AC; Rice TB; Wetzel RC
    Crit Care Med; 2016 Dec; 44(12):2131-2138. PubMed ID: 27513535
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating absolute effects of treatments on survival outcomes: A simulation study.
    Austin PC; Schuster T
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2016 Oct; 25(5):2214-2237. PubMed ID: 24463885
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Propensity score weighting analysis and treatment effect discovery.
    Mao H; Li L; Greene T
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2019 Aug; 28(8):2439-2454. PubMed ID: 29921162
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Nutritional Status and Mortality in the Critically Ill.
    Mogensen KM; Robinson MK; Casey JD; Gunasekera NS; Moromizato T; Rawn JD; Christopher KB
    Crit Care Med; 2015 Dec; 43(12):2605-15. PubMed ID: 26427592
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Optimal full matching for survival outcomes: a method that merits more widespread use.
    Austin PC; Stuart EA
    Stat Med; 2015 Dec; 34(30):3949-67. PubMed ID: 26250611
    [TBL] [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. Propensity Score Methods: Theory and Practice for Anesthesia Research.
    Schulte PJ; Mascha EJ
    Anesth Analg; 2018 Oct; 127(4):1074-1084. PubMed ID: 29750691
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Estimating the effect of treatment on binary outcomes using full matching on the propensity score.
    Austin PC; Stuart EA
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2017 Dec; 26(6):2505-2525. PubMed ID: 26329750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. On the use of propensity scores in case of rare exposure.
    Hajage D; Tubach F; Steg PG; Bhatt DL; De Rycke Y
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2016 Mar; 16():38. PubMed ID: 27036963
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.