149 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36748630)
1. A comparison of different methods to adjust survival curves for confounders.
Denz R; Klaaßen-Mielke R; Timmesfeld N
Stat Med; 2023 May; 42(10):1461-1479. PubMed ID: 36748630
[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. 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]
4. Causal inference for recurrent event data using pseudo-observations.
Su CL; Platt RW; Plante JF
Biostatistics; 2022 Jan; 23(1):189-206. PubMed ID: 32432686
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Interval-cohort designs and bias in the estimation of per-protocol effects: a simulation study.
Young JG; Vatsa R; Murray EJ; Hernán MA
Trials; 2019 Sep; 20(1):552. PubMed ID: 31488202
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A simple, doubly robust, efficient estimator for survival functions using pseudo observations.
Wang J
Pharm Stat; 2018 Feb; 17(1):38-48. PubMed ID: 29094501
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparison of the ability of double-robust estimators to correct bias in propensity score matching analysis. A Monte Carlo simulation study.
Nguyen TL; Collins GS; Spence J; Devereaux PJ; Daurès JP; Landais P; Le Manach Y
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2017 Dec; 26(12):1513-1519. PubMed ID: 28984050
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Machine Learning for Causal Inference: On the Use of Cross-fit Estimators.
Zivich PN; Breskin A
Epidemiology; 2021 May; 32(3):393-401. PubMed ID: 33591058
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparing g-computation, propensity score-based weighting, and targeted maximum likelihood estimation for analyzing externally controlled trials with both measured and unmeasured confounders: a simulation study.
Ren J; Cislo P; Cappelleri JC; Hlavacek P; DiBonaventura M
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2023 Jan; 23(1):18. PubMed ID: 36647031
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Machine learning outcome regression improves doubly robust estimation of average causal effects.
Choi BY; Wang CP; Gelfond J
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2020 Sep; 29(9):1120-1133. PubMed ID: 32716126
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Inverse probability of treatment weighting with generalized linear outcome models for doubly robust estimation.
Gabriel EE; Sachs MC; Martinussen T; Waernbaum I; Goetghebeur E; Vansteelandt S; Sjölander A
Stat Med; 2024 Feb; 43(3):534-547. PubMed ID: 38096856
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Propensity score weighting under limited overlap and model misspecification.
Zhou Y; Matsouaka RA; Thomas L
Stat Methods Med Res; 2020 Dec; 29(12):3721-3756. PubMed ID: 32693715
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Impact of outcome model misspecification on regression and doubly-robust inverse probability weighting to estimate causal effect.
Lefebvre G; Gustafson P
Int J Biostat; 2010; 6(2):Article 15. PubMed ID: 21969999
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Multiply robust estimator for the difference in survival functions using pseudo-observations.
Wang C; Wei K; Huang C; Yu Y; Qin G
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2023 Oct; 23(1):247. PubMed ID: 37872495
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. G-computation and doubly robust standardisation for continuous-time data: A comparison with inverse probability weighting.
Chatton A; Borgne FL; Leyrat C; Foucher Y
Stat Methods Med Res; 2022 Apr; 31(4):706-718. PubMed ID: 34861799
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Doubly-robust methods for differences in restricted mean lifetimes using pseudo-observations.
Choi S; Choi T; Lee HY; Han SW; Bandyopadhyay D
Pharm Stat; 2022 Nov; 21(6):1185-1198. PubMed ID: 35524651
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. The alarming problems of confounding equivalence using logistic regression models in the perspective of causal diagrams.
Yu Y; Li H; Sun X; Su P; Wang T; Liu Y; Yuan Z; Liu Y; Xue F
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Dec; 17(1):177. PubMed ID: 29281984
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
