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 *

201 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34535060)

  • 1. Methods to Address Confounding and Other Biases in Meta-Analyses: Review and Recommendations.
    Mathur MB; VanderWeele TJ
    Annu Rev Public Health; 2022 Apr; 43():19-35. PubMed ID: 34535060
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Sensitivity Analysis for Unmeasured Confounding in Meta-Analyses.
    Mathur MB; VanderWeele TJ
    J Am Stat Assoc; 2020; 115(529):163-172. PubMed ID: 32981992
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Sensitivity analysis for the interactive effects of internal bias and publication bias in meta-analyses.
    Mathur MB
    Res Synth Methods; 2024 Jan; 15(1):21-43. PubMed ID: 37743567
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Quantitative bias analysis in practice: review of software for regression with unmeasured confounding.
    Kawabata E; Tilling K; Groenwold RHH; Hughes RA
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2023 May; 23(1):111. PubMed ID: 37142961
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Bias formulas for sensitivity analysis of unmeasured confounding for general outcomes, treatments, and confounders.
    Vanderweele TJ; Arah OA
    Epidemiology; 2011 Jan; 22(1):42-52. PubMed ID: 21052008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Unmeasured confounding in nonrandomized studies: quantitative bias analysis in health technology assessment.
    Leahy TP; Kent S; Sammon C; Groenwold RH; Grieve R; Ramagopalan S; Gomes M
    J Comp Eff Res; 2022 Aug; 11(12):851-859. PubMed ID: 35678151
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Controversy and debate on credibility ceilings. Paper 1: Fundamental problems with the "credibility ceiling" method for meta-analyses.
    Mathur MB; VanderWeele TJ
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2020 Nov; 127():208-210. PubMed ID: 32450128
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. A proposed method of bias adjustment for meta-analyses of published observational studies.
    Thompson S; Ekelund U; Jebb S; Lindroos AK; Mander A; Sharp S; Turner R; Wilks D
    Int J Epidemiol; 2011 Jun; 40(3):765-77. PubMed ID: 21186183
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. How to report E-values for meta-analyses: Recommended improvements and additions to the new GRADE approach.
    Mathur MB; VanderWeele TJ
    Environ Int; 2022 Feb; 160():107032. PubMed ID: 34954645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Ignoring non-English-language studies may bias ecological meta-analyses.
    Konno K; Akasaka M; Koshida C; Katayama N; Osada N; Spake R; Amano T
    Ecol Evol; 2020 Jul; 10(13):6373-6384. PubMed ID: 32724519
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A comparison of Bayesian and Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis for unmeasured confounding.
    McCandless LC; Gustafson P
    Stat Med; 2017 Aug; 36(18):2887-2901. PubMed ID: 28386994
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Methods to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies: a systematic scoping review of recommendations.
    Mueller M; D'Addario M; Egger M; Cevallos M; Dekkers O; Mugglin C; Scott P
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2018 May; 18(1):44. PubMed ID: 29783954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment.
    Philips Z; Ginnelly L; Sculpher M; Claxton K; Golder S; Riemsma R; Woolacoot N; Glanville J
    Health Technol Assess; 2004 Sep; 8(36):iii-iv, ix-xi, 1-158. PubMed ID: 15361314
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.