Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination

Results: 1 to 20 of 156

Similar articles for PubMed (Select 20802241)

1.
2.

A comparison of 12 algorithms for matching on the propensity score.

Austin PC.

Stat Med. 2014 Mar 15;33(6):1057-69. doi: 10.1002/sim.6004. Epub 2013 Oct 7.

4.

The concept of the marginally matched subject in propensity-score matched analyses.

Austin PC, Lee DS.

Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2009 Jun;18(6):469-82. doi: 10.1002/pds.1733.

PMID:
19319923
5.

Double propensity-score adjustment: A solution to design bias or bias due to incomplete matching.

Austin PC.

Stat Methods Med Res. 2014 Jul 17. pii: 0962280214543508. [Epub ahead of print]

PMID:
25038071
6.

One-to-many propensity score matching in cohort studies.

Rassen JA, Shelat AA, Myers J, Glynn RJ, Rothman KJ, Schneeweiss S.

Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012 May;21 Suppl 2:69-80. doi: 10.1002/pds.3263.

PMID:
22552982
7.
8.

Type I error rates, coverage of confidence intervals, and variance estimation in propensity-score matched analyses.

Austin PC.

Int J Biostat. 2009 Apr 14;5(1):Article 13. doi: 10.2202/1557-4679.1146.

10.
11.

Assessing balance in measured baseline covariates when using many-to-one matching on the propensity-score.

Austin PC.

Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2008 Dec;17(12):1218-25. doi: 10.1002/pds.1674.

PMID:
18972455
12.
13.

Optimal caliper width for propensity score matching of three treatment groups: a Monte Carlo study.

Wang Y, Cai H, Li C, Jiang Z, Wang L, Song J, Xia J.

PLoS One. 2013 Dec 11;8(12):e81045. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0081045. eCollection 2013.

14.
15.

Selecting an appropriate caliper can be essential for achieving good balance with propensity score matching.

Lunt M.

Am J Epidemiol. 2014 Jan 15;179(2):226-35. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwt212. Epub 2013 Oct 10.

16.

The relative ability of different propensity score methods to balance measured covariates between treated and untreated subjects in observational studies.

Austin PC.

Med Decis Making. 2009 Nov-Dec;29(6):661-77. doi: 10.1177/0272989X09341755. Epub 2009 Aug 14.

PMID:
19684288
18.
19.

The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal hazard ratios.

Austin PC.

Stat Med. 2013 Jul 20;32(16):2837-49. doi: 10.1002/sim.5705. Epub 2012 Dec 12.

20.

Matching by propensity score in cohort studies with three treatment groups.

Rassen JA, Shelat AA, Franklin JM, Glynn RJ, Solomon DH, Schneeweiss S.

Epidemiology. 2013 May;24(3):401-9. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e318289dedf.

Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination

Supplemental Content

Write to the Help Desk