121 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37986712)
1. Inclusion of binary proxy variables in logistic regression improves treatment effect estimation in observational studies in the presence of binary unmeasured confounding variables.
Rosenbaum C; Yu Q; Buzhardt S; Sutton E; Chapple AG
Pharm Stat; 2023; 22(6):995-1015. PubMed ID: 37986712
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Assessing causal treatment effect estimation when using large observational datasets.
John ER; Abrams KR; Brightling CE; Sheehan NA
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Nov; 19(1):207. PubMed ID: 31726969
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The impact of residual and unmeasured confounding in epidemiologic studies: a simulation study.
Fewell Z; Davey Smith G; Sterne JA
Am J Epidemiol; 2007 Sep; 166(6):646-55. PubMed ID: 17615092
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A simulation-based bias analysis to assess the impact of unmeasured confounding when designing non-randomized database studies.
Desai RJ; Bradley MC; Lee H; Eworuke E; Weberpals J; Wyss R; Schneeweiss S; Ball R
Am J Epidemiol; 2024 May; ():. PubMed ID: 38825336
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A proxy outcome approach for causal effect in observational studies: a simulation study.
Liang W; Zhao Y; Lee AH
Biomed Res Int; 2014; 2014():872435. PubMed ID: 24695548
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Validity evaluation of indirect adjustment method for multiple unmeasured confounders: A simulation and empirical study.
Byun G; Kim H; Kim SY; Kim SS; Oh H; Lee JT
Environ Res; 2022 Mar; 204(Pt A):111992. PubMed ID: 34487697
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. [Probe variables: a tool for identification of unmeasured confounders in an observational study].
Hong X; Yin JC; Wang B
Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi; 2021 Apr; 42(4):735-739. PubMed ID: 34814460
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A comparison of confounder selection and adjustment methods for estimating causal effects using large healthcare databases.
Benasseur I; Talbot D; Durand M; Holbrook A; Matteau A; Potter BJ; Renoux C; Schnitzer ME; Tarride JÉ; Guertin JR
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2022 Apr; 31(4):424-433. PubMed ID: 34953160
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. Treatment effects in the presence of unmeasured confounding: dealing with observations in the tails of the propensity score distribution--a simulation study.
Stürmer T; Rothman KJ; Avorn J; Glynn RJ
Am J Epidemiol; 2010 Oct; 172(7):843-54. PubMed ID: 20716704
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: a Monte Carlo study.
Austin PC; Grootendorst P; Anderson GM
Stat Med; 2007 Feb; 26(4):734-53. PubMed ID: 16708349
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Bias Formulas for Estimating Direct and Indirect Effects When Unmeasured Confounding Is Present.
le Cessie S
Epidemiology; 2016 Jan; 27(1):125-32. PubMed ID: 26426943
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. Comparing the performance of two-stage residual inclusion methods when using physician's prescribing preference as an instrumental variable: unmeasured confounding and noncollapsibility.
Zhang L; Lewsey J
J Comp Eff Res; 2024 May; 13(5):e230085. PubMed ID: 38567965
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
