157 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7950528)
1. Interpreting the results of observational research: chance is not such a fine thing.
Brennan P; Croft P
BMJ; 1994 Sep; 309(6956):727-30. PubMed ID: 7950528
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Methods to adjust for bias and confounding in critical care health services research involving observational data.
Wunsch H; Linde-Zwirble WT; Angus DC
J Crit Care; 2006 Mar; 21(1):1-7. PubMed ID: 16616616
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Observational studies: a review of study designs, challenges and strategies to reduce confounding.
Lu CY
Int J Clin Pract; 2009 May; 63(5):691-7. PubMed ID: 19392919
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Confounding in health research.
Greenland S; Morgenstern H
Annu Rev Public Health; 2001; 22():189-212. PubMed ID: 11274518
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Interpretation of epidemiologic studies very often lacked adequate consideration of confounding.
Hemkens LG; Ewald H; Naudet F; Ladanie A; Shaw JG; Sajeev G; Ioannidis JPA
J Clin Epidemiol; 2018 Jan; 93():94-102. PubMed ID: 28943377
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Bias in research.
Agabegi SS; Stern PJ
Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ); 2008 May; 37(5):242-8. PubMed ID: 18587501
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Should meta-analyses of interventions include observational studies in addition to randomized controlled trials? A critical examination of underlying principles.
Shrier I; Boivin JF; Steele RJ; Platt RW; Furlan A; Kakuma R; Brophy J; Rossignol M
Am J Epidemiol; 2007 Nov; 166(10):1203-9. PubMed ID: 17712019
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Beyond HERS: some (not so) random thoughts on randomized clinical trials.
Bush T
Int J Fertil Womens Med; 2001; 46(2):55-9. PubMed ID: 11374656
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. [Roaming through the methodology. XX. Randomization as a means of avoiding confounding through indication].
Zielhuis GA
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2000 Aug; 144(32):1528-31. PubMed ID: 10949635
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. On the causal structure of information bias and confounding bias in randomized trials.
Shahar E; Shahar DJ
J Eval Clin Pract; 2009 Dec; 15(6):1214-6. PubMed ID: 20367730
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A systematic review of comparisons of effect sizes derived from randomised and non-randomised studies.
MacLehose RR; Reeves BC; Harvey IM; Sheldon TA; Russell IT; Black AM
Health Technol Assess; 2000; 4(34):1-154. PubMed ID: 11134917
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Beyond randomised versus observational studies.
Concato J; Horwitz RI
Lancet; 2004 May; 363(9422):1660-1. PubMed ID: 15158623
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Re-interpreting conventional interval estimates taking into account bias and extra-variation.
Höfler M; Seaman SR
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2006 Oct; 6():51. PubMed ID: 17042949
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Bias and causal associations in observational research.
Grimes DA; Schulz KF
Lancet; 2002 Jan; 359(9302):248-52. PubMed ID: 11812579
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Interpreting the term selection bias in medical research.
Mark DH
Fam Med; 1997 Feb; 29(2):132-6. PubMed ID: 9048175
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Prior event rate ratio adjustment: numerical studies of a statistical method to address unrecognized confounding in observational studies.
Yu M; Xie D; Wang X; Weiner MG; Tannen RL
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2012 May; 21 Suppl 2():60-8. PubMed ID: 22552981
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Bounding formulas for selection bias.
Huang TH; Lee WC
Am J Epidemiol; 2015 Nov; 182(10):868-72. PubMed ID: 26519426
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Making inferences on treatment effects from real world data: propensity scores, confounding by indication, and other perils for the unwary in observational research.
Freemantle N; Marston L; Walters K; Wood J; Reynolds MR; Petersen I
BMJ; 2013 Nov; 347():f6409. PubMed ID: 24217206
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. When are observational studies as credible as randomised trials?
Vandenbroucke JP
Lancet; 2004 May; 363(9422):1728-31. PubMed ID: 15158638
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Observational evidence.
Hennekens CH; Buring JE
Ann N Y Acad Sci; 1993 Dec; 703():18-24; discussion 24. PubMed ID: 8192295
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
