147 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35560110)
1. A comparison of full model specification and backward elimination of potential confounders when estimating marginal and conditional causal effects on binary outcomes from observational data.
Luijken K; Groenwold RHH; van Smeden M; Strohmaier S; Heinze G
Biom J; 2024 Jan; 66(1):e2100237. PubMed ID: 35560110
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.
Crider K; Williams J; Qi YP; Gutman J; Yeung L; Mai C; Finkelstain J; Mehta S; Pons-Duran C; Menéndez C; Moraleda C; Rogers L; Daniels K; Green P
Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2022 Feb; 2(2022):. PubMed ID: 36321557
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A simulation study on matched case-control designs in the perspective of causal diagrams.
Li H; Yuan Z; Su P; Wang T; Yu Y; Sun X; Xue F
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2016 Aug; 16(1):102. PubMed ID: 27543263
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Confounder selection strategies targeting stable treatment effect estimators.
Loh WW; Vansteelandt S
Stat Med; 2021 Feb; 40(3):607-630. PubMed ID: 33150645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Causal logistic models for non-compliance under randomized treatment with univariate binary response.
Ten Have TR; Joffe M; Cary M
Stat Med; 2003 Apr; 22(8):1255-83. PubMed ID: 12687654
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Can statistical adjustment guided by causal inference improve the accuracy of effect estimation? A simulation and empirical research based on meta-analyses of case-control studies.
Yan R; Liu T; Peng Y; Peng X
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak; 2020 Dec; 20(1):333. PubMed ID: 33308213
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Confounding and regression adjustment in difference-in-differences studies.
Zeldow B; Hatfield LA
Health Serv Res; 2021 Oct; 56(5):932-941. PubMed ID: 33978956
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Adjustment for Baseline Covariates to Increase Efficiency in RCTs with Binary Endpoint: A Comparison of Bayesian and Frequentist Approaches.
Berchialla P; Sciannameo V; Urru S; Lanera C; Azzolina D; Gregori D; Baldi I
Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2021 Jul; 18(15):. PubMed ID: 34360051
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios.
Austin PC
Stat Med; 2007 Jul; 26(16):3078-94. PubMed ID: 17187347
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Time dependent hazard ratio estimation using instrumental variables without conditioning on an omitted covariate.
MacKenzie TA; Martinez-Camblor P; O'Malley AJ
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 Mar; 21(1):56. PubMed ID: 33743583
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Using computable knowledge mined from the literature to elucidate confounders for EHR-based pharmacovigilance.
Malec SA; Wei P; Bernstam EV; Boyce RD; Cohen T
J Biomed Inform; 2021 May; 117():103719. PubMed ID: 33716168
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Decreased Susceptibility of Marginal Odds Ratios to Finite-sample Bias.
Ross RK; Cole SR; Richardson DB
Epidemiology; 2021 Sep; 32(5):648-652. PubMed ID: 34001751
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Instrumental variables and inverse probability weighting for causal inference from longitudinal observational studies.
Hogan JW; Lancaster T
Stat Methods Med Res; 2004 Feb; 13(1):17-48. PubMed ID: 14746439
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A comparison of methods to estimate the survivor average causal effect in the presence of missing data: a simulation study.
McGuinness MB; Kasza J; Karahalios A; Guymer RH; Finger RP; Simpson JA
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Dec; 19(1):223. PubMed ID: 31795945
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Adjusting for bias and unmeasured confounding in Mendelian randomization studies with binary responses.
Palmer TM; Thompson JR; Tobin MD; Sheehan NA; Burton PR
Int J Epidemiol; 2008 Oct; 37(5):1161-8. PubMed ID: 18463132
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Adjustment for baseline characteristics in randomized trials using logistic regression: sample-based model versus true model.
Perneger T; Combescure C; Poncet A
Trials; 2023 Feb; 24(1):107. PubMed ID: 36782238
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Longitudinal plasmode algorithms to evaluate statistical methods in realistic scenarios: an illustration applied to occupational epidemiology.
Souli Y; Trudel X; Diop A; Brisson C; Talbot D
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2023 Oct; 23(1):242. PubMed ID: 37853309
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Quantifying the bias due to observed individual confounders in causal treatment effect estimates.
Parast L; Griffin BA
Stat Med; 2020 Aug; 39(18):2447-2476. PubMed ID: 32388870
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
