• 1
    Sox H, Greenfield S. Comparative effectiveness research: a report from the Institute of Medicine. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: 203205.
  • 2
    Tannen RL, Weiner MG, Xie D. Use of primary care electronic medical record database in drug efficacy research on cardiovascular outcomes: comparison of database and randomized controlled trial findings. BMJ 2009; 338: b81. [doi:10.1136/bmj.b81]
  • 3
    Tannen RL, Weiner MG, Xie D, Barnhart K. A simulation using data from a primary care practice database closely replicated the women's health initiative trial. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60: 686695.
  • 4
    Weiner MG, Xie D, Tannen RL. Replication of the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study using a primary care medical record database prompted exploration of a new method to address unmeasured confounding. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2008; 17: 661670.
  • 5
    Tannen RL, Weiner MG, Xie D. Replicated studies of two randomized trials of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors: further empiric validation of the “prior event rate ratio” to adjust for unmeasured confounding by indication. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2008; 17: 671685.
  • 6
    Gelfand JM, Margolis DJ, Dattani H. The UK General Practice Research Database. In Pharmacoepidemiology, 4th edn, Strom BL (ed.). New York: John Wiley, 2005: 337346.
  • 7
    Writing Group for the Women's Health Initiative Investigators. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in health postmenopausal women. Principal results from the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Assoc 2002; 288: 321333.
  • 8
    Women's Health Initiative Steering Committee. Effects of conjugated equine estrogen in postmenopausal women with hysterectomy: the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Assoc 2004; 291: 17011712.
  • 9
    Rossouw JE, Prentice RL, Manson JE, et al. Postmenopausal hormone therapy and risk of cardiovascular disease by age and years since menopause. J Am Med Assoc 2007; 297: 14651477.
  • 10
    Tannen RL, Weiner MG, Xie D, Barnhart K. Estrogen affects post-menopausal women differently than estrogen plus progestin therapy. Hum Reprod 2007; 22: 17691777.
  • 11
    Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study Group. Randomised trial of cholesterol lowering in 4444 patients with coronary heart disease: the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Lancet 1994; 344: 13831389.
  • 12
    Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study Investigators. Effects of an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor, ramipril, on cardiovascular events in high risk patients. N Eng J Med 2000; 342: 145153.
  • 13
    European Trial on Reduction of Cardiac Events with Perindopril in Stable Coronary Artery Disease Investigators. Efficacy of perindopril in reduction of cardiovascular events among patients with stable coronary artery disease: randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial (the EUROPA study). Lancet 2003; 362: 782788.
  • 14
    Bretagnolle J, Huber-Carol C. Effects of omitting covariates in Cox's model for survival data. Scand J Stat 1988; 15: 125138.
  • 15
    Struthers CA, Kalbfleisch JD. Misspecified proportional hazard models. Biometrika 1986; 73: 363369.
  • 16
    Henderson R, Oman P. Effect of frailty on marginal regression estimates in survival analysis. J R Stat Soc Ser B 2002; 61: 367379.
  • 17
    Kosorok MR, Lee LB, Fine JP. Robust inference for univariate proportional hazards frailty regression models. Ann Stat 2004; 32: 14481491.
  • 18
    Molenberghs G, Verbeke G. Models for Discrete Longitudinal Data. Springer: New York, 2005.
  • 19
    Gross TS, Huber C. Matched pair experiments: Cox and maximum likelihood estimation. Scand J Stat 1987; 14: 2741.
  • 20
    Rosenbaum P, Rubin D. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983; 70: 4155.
  • 21
    Rosenbaum P, Rubin D. Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. J Am Stat Assoc 1984; 79: 516524.
  • 22
    D'Agostino RB, Rubin DB. Estimating and using propensity scores with partially missing data. J Am Stat Assoc 2000; 95: 749759.
  • 23
    Sturmer T, Schneeweiss S, Rothman KJ, Avorn J, Glynn RJ. Performance of propensity score calibration – a simulation study. Am J Epidemiol 2007; 165: 11101118.
  • 24
    Angrist I. Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables (with discusssion). J Am Stat Assoc 1996; 91: 444455.
  • 25
    Brookhart MA, Wang PS, Solomon DH, et al. Evaluating short-term drug effects using a physician-specific prescribing preference as an instrumental variable. Epidemiology 2006; 17(3): 268275.
  • 26
    Rassen JA, Schneeweiss S, Glynn RJ, et al. Instrumental variable analysis for estimation of treatment effects with dichotomous outcomes. Am J Epidemiol 2009; 169(3): 273284.
  • 27
    Rassen JA, Brookhart MA, Glynn RJ, et al. Instrumental variables II: instrumental variable application–in 25 variations, the physician prescribing preference generally was strong and reduced covariate imbalance. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62(12): 12331241.
  • 28
    Didelez V, Meng S, Sheehan NA. Assumptions of IV methods for observational epidemiology. Stat Sci 2010; 25(1): 2240.
  • 29
    Athey S, Imbens GW. Identification and inference in nonlinear difference-in-differences models. Econometrica 2006; 74: 431497.
  • 30
    Suissa S. The case-time-control design. Epidemiology 1995; 6(3): 248253.
  • 31
    Greenland S. Confounding and exposure trends in case-crossover and case-time-control designs. Epidemiology 1996; 7(3): 231239.
  • 32
    Suissa S. The case-time-control design: further assumptions and conditions. Epidemiology 1998; 9(4): 441445.