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 *

150 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36635655)

  • 1. Misspecification of confounder-exposure and confounder-outcome associations leads to bias in effect estimates.
    Schuster NA; Rijnhart JJM; Bosman LC; Twisk JWR; Klausch T; Heymans MW
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2023 Jan; 23(1):11. PubMed ID: 36635655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The impact of moderator by confounder interactions in the assessment of treatment effect modification: a simulation study.
    Marsden AM; Dixon WG; Dunn G; Emsley R
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2022 Apr; 22(1):88. PubMed ID: 35369866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Controlling for continuous confounders in epidemiologic research.
    Brenner H; Blettner M
    Epidemiology; 1997 Jul; 8(4):429-34. PubMed ID: 9209859
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. On the use and misuse of scalar scores of confounders in design and analysis of observational studies.
    Pfeiffer RM; Riedl R
    Stat Med; 2015 Aug; 34(18):2618-35. PubMed ID: 25781579
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Model misspecification and bias for inverse probability weighting estimators of average causal effects.
    Waernbaum I; Pazzagli L
    Biom J; 2023 Feb; 65(2):e2100118. PubMed ID: 36045099
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Which Propensity Score Method Best Reduces Confounder Imbalance? An Example From a Retrospective Evaluation of a Childhood Obesity Intervention.
    Schroeder K; Jia H; Smaldone A
    Nurs Res; 2016; 65(6):465-474. PubMed ID: 27801717
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Using generalized additive models to reduce residual confounding.
    Benedetti A; Abrahamowicz M
    Stat Med; 2004 Dec; 23(24):3781-801. PubMed ID: 15580601
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. To Adjust or Not to Adjust? When a "Confounder" Is Only Measured After Exposure.
    Groenwold RHH; Palmer TM; Tilling K
    Epidemiology; 2021 Mar; 32(2):194-201. PubMed ID: 33470711
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Investigation of the structure and magnitude of time-varying uncontrolled confounding in simulated cohort data analyzed using g-computation.
    Soohoo M; Arah OA
    Int J Epidemiol; 2023 Dec; 52(6):1907-1913. PubMed ID: 37898996
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Testing for gene-environment interaction under exposure misspecification.
    Sun R; Carroll RJ; Christiani DC; Lin X
    Biometrics; 2018 Jun; 74(2):653-662. PubMed ID: 29120492
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Estimating Bias Due to Unmeasured Confounding in Oral Health Epidemiology.
    Mittinty MN
    Community Dent Health; 2020 Feb; 37(1):84-89. PubMed ID: 32031350
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Should we adjust for a confounder if empirical and theoretical criteria yield contradictory results? A simulation study.
    Lee PH
    Sci Rep; 2014 Aug; 4():6085. PubMed ID: 25124526
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Quantitative Bias Analysis of the Association between Occupational Radiation Exposure and Ischemic Heart Disease Mortality in UK Nuclear Workers.
    de Vocht F; Martin RM; Hidajat M; Wakeford R
    Radiat Res; 2021 Dec; 196(6):574-586. PubMed ID: 34370860
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Evaluation of propensity scores, disease risk scores, and regression in confounder adjustment for the safety of emerging treatment with group sequential monitoring.
    Xu S; Shetterly S; Cook AJ; Raebel MA; Goonesekera S; Shoaibi A; Roy J; Fireman B
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2016 Apr; 25(4):453-61. PubMed ID: 26875591
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.