Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination

Results: 1 to 20 of 47

Related Articles by Review for PubMed (Select 19446162)

1.

Interpreting treatment-effect estimates with heterogeneity and choice: simulation model results.

Brooks JM, Fang G.

Clin Ther. 2009 Apr;31(4):902-19. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2009.04.007.

PMID:
19446162
2.

Methods to assess intended effects of drug treatment in observational studies are reviewed.

Klungel OH, Martens EP, Psaty BM, Grobbee DE, Sullivan SD, Stricker BH, Leufkens HG, de Boer A.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2004 Dec;57(12):1223-31. Review.

PMID:
15617947
3.

[Introduction to risk adjustment methods in comparative evaluation of outcomes].

ArcĂ  M, Fusco D, Barone AP, Perucci CA.

Epidemiol Prev. 2006 Jul-Oct;30(4-5 Suppl):5-47. Review. Italian.

PMID:
17361834
4.

[Instrumental variable analysis].

Boef AG, le Cessie S, Dekkers OM.

Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2013;157(4):A5481. Review. Dutch.

PMID:
23343737
5.

Comparison of adjusted attributable risk estimators.

Gefeller O.

Stat Med. 1992 Dec;11(16):2083-91. Review.

PMID:
1293670
6.

Invited commentary: ecologic studies--biases, misconceptions, and counterexamples.

Greenland S, Robins J.

Am J Epidemiol. 1994 Apr 15;139(8):747-60. Review.

PMID:
8178788
7.

Assessing, accommodating, and interpreting the influences of heterogeneity.

Louis TA.

Environ Health Perspect. 1991 Jan;90:215-22. Review.

8.

[Bias in observational research: 'confounding'].

Groenwold RH.

Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2012;156(13):A4221. Review. Dutch.

PMID:
22456291
9.

Marginal structural models might overcome confounding when analyzing multiple treatment effects in observational studies.

Suarez D, Haro JM, Novick D, Ochoa S.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Jun;61(6):525-30. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.007. Review.

PMID:
18471655
10.

Estimation of failure probabilities in the presence of competing risks: new representations of old estimators.

Gooley TA, Leisenring W, Crowley J, Storer BE.

Stat Med. 1999 Mar 30;18(6):695-706. Review.

PMID:
10204198
11.

Construct validity in health behavior research: interpreting latent variable models involving self-report and objective measures.

Palmer RF, Graham JW, Taylor B, Tatterson J.

J Behav Med. 2002 Dec;25(6):525-50. Review.

PMID:
12462957
12.

Selective reporting of adjusted estimates in observational epidemiology studies: reasons and implications for meta-analyses.

Peters J, Mengersen K.

Eval Health Prof. 2008 Dec;31(4):370-89. doi: 10.1177/0163278708324438. Epub 2008 Nov 9. Review.

PMID:
19000980
13.

Quantitative assessment of unobserved confounding is mandatory in nonrandomized intervention studies.

Groenwold RH, Hak E, Hoes AW.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Jan;62(1):22-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.02.011. Epub 2008 Jul 10. Review.

PMID:
18619797
14.

Ecological analysis of intended treatment effects: caveat emptor.

Naylor CD.

J Clin Epidemiol. 1999 Jan;52(1):1-5. Review. No abstract available.

PMID:
9973067
15.

Bounding causal effects under uncontrolled confounding using counterfactuals.

MacLehose RF, Kaufman S, Kaufman JS, Poole C.

Epidemiology. 2005 Jul;16(4):548-55. Review.

PMID:
15951674
16.

What random assignment does and does not do.

Krause MS, Howard KI.

J Clin Psychol. 2003 Jul;59(7):751-66. Review.

PMID:
12808582
17.

Using directed acyclic graphs to guide analyses of neighbourhood health effects: an introduction.

Fleischer NL, Diez Roux AV.

J Epidemiol Community Health. 2008 Sep;62(9):842-6. doi: 10.1136/jech.2007.067371. Review.

PMID:
18701738
18.

When can group level clustering be ignored? Multilevel models versus single-level models with sparse data.

Clarke P.

J Epidemiol Community Health. 2008 Aug;62(8):752-8. doi: 10.1136/jech.2007.060798. Review.

PMID:
18621963
19.
20.

A review of adjusted estimators of attributable risk.

Benichou J.

Stat Methods Med Res. 2001 Jun;10(3):195-216. Review.

PMID:
11446148
Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination

Supplemental Content

Write to the Help Desk