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 *

197 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33382777)

  • 21. Reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in otolaryngology: review of adherence to the CONSORT statement.
    Huang YQ; Traore K; Ibrahim B; Sewitch MJ; Nguyen LHP
    J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2018 May; 47(1):34. PubMed ID: 29764496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Propensity Score Matching: A Statistical Method.
    Kane LT; Fang T; Galetta MS; Goyal DKC; Nicholson KJ; Kepler CK; Vaccaro AR; Schroeder GD
    Clin Spine Surg; 2020 Apr; 33(3):120-122. PubMed ID: 31913173
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. A comparison of machine learning algorithms and covariate balance measures for propensity score matching and weighting.
    Cannas M; Arpino B
    Biom J; 2019 Jul; 61(4):1049-1072. PubMed ID: 31090108
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. A systematic review of propensity score methods in the acute care surgery literature: avoiding the pitfalls and proposing a set of reporting guidelines.
    Zakrison TL; Austin PC; McCredie VA
    Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg; 2018 Jun; 44(3):385-395. PubMed ID: 28342097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Published in High-Impact Otolaryngology Journals.
    Martinez-Monedero R; Danielian A; Angajala V; Dinalo JE; Kezirian EJ
    Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2020 Nov; 163(5):892-905. PubMed ID: 32450783
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Potential Pitfalls of Reporting and Bias in Observational Studies With Propensity Score Analysis Assessing a Surgical Procedure: A Methodological Systematic Review.
    Lonjon G; Porcher R; Ergina P; Fouet M; Boutron I
    Ann Surg; 2017 May; 265(5):901-909. PubMed ID: 27232253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Impact of the matching algorithm on the treatment effect estimate: A neutral comparison study.
    Heinz P; Wendel-Garcia PD; Held U
    Biom J; 2024 Jan; 66(1):e2100292. PubMed ID: 35385172
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. The future of Cochrane Neonatal.
    Soll RF; Ovelman C; McGuire W
    Early Hum Dev; 2020 Nov; 150():105191. PubMed ID: 33036834
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. To use or not to use propensity score matching?
    Wang J
    Pharm Stat; 2021 Jan; 20(1):15-24. PubMed ID: 32776719
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Application and comparison of generalized propensity score matching versus pairwise propensity score matching.
    Cui ZL; Hess LM; Goodloe R; Faries D
    J Comp Eff Res; 2018 Sep; 7(9):923-934. PubMed ID: 29925271
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. [Evidence-based medicine: opportunities of the Propensity Score Matching (PSM) method in eliminating selection bias in retrospective neurosurgical studies].
    Moskalev AV; Gladkikh VS; Al'shevskaya AA; Kovalevskiy AP; Sakhanenko AI; Orlov KY; Konovalov NA; Krut'ko AV
    Zh Vopr Neirokhir Im N N Burdenko; 2018; 82(1):52-58. PubMed ID: 29543216
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Assessment of the E-value in the presence of bias amplification: a simulation study.
    Barrette E; Higuera L; Wherry K
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2024 Mar; 24(1):79. PubMed ID: 38539082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Longitudinal analysis of reporting and quality of systematic reviews in high-impact surgical journals.
    Chapman SJ; Drake TM; Bolton WS; Barnard J; Bhangu A
    Br J Surg; 2017 Feb; 104(3):198-204. PubMed ID: 28001294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Reporting quality of statistical methods in surgical observational studies: protocol for systematic review.
    Wu R; Glen P; Ramsay T; Martel G
    Syst Rev; 2014 Jun; 3():70. PubMed ID: 24972453
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Evaluation of propensity score used in cardiovascular research: a cross-sectional survey and guidance document.
    Samuel M; Batomen B; Rouette J; Kim J; Platt RW; Brophy JM; Kaufman JS
    BMJ Open; 2020 Aug; 10(8):e036961. PubMed ID: 32847911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. The use of propensity score methods with survival or time-to-event outcomes: reporting measures of effect similar to those used in randomized experiments.
    Austin PC
    Stat Med; 2014 Mar; 33(7):1242-58. PubMed ID: 24122911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Applications of propensity score matching: a case series of articles published in Annals of Coloproctology.
    Kim HJ
    Ann Coloproctol; 2022 Dec; 38(6):398-402. PubMed ID: 36596300
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Squeezing the balloon: propensity scores and unmeasured covariate balance.
    Brooks JM; Ohsfeldt RL
    Health Serv Res; 2013 Aug; 48(4):1487-507. PubMed ID: 23216471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.