Author: Jennifer C.E Lane; James Weaver; Kristin Kostka; Talita Duarte-Salles; Maria Tereza F. Abrahao; Heba Alghoul; Osaid Alser; Thamir M Alshammari; Patricia Biedermann; Edward Burn; Paula Casajust; Mitch Conover; Aedin C. Culhane; Alexander Davydov; Scott L. DuVall; Dmitry Dymshyts; Sergio Fernández Bertolín; Kristina Fišter; Jill Hardin; Laura Hester; George Hripcsak; Seamus Kent; Sajan Khosla; Spyros Kolovos; Christophe G. Lambert; Johan ver der Lei; Ajit A. Londhe; Kristine E. Lynch; Rupa Makadia; Andrea V. Margulis; Michael E. Matheny; Paras Mehta; Daniel R. Morales; Henry Morgan-Stewart; Mees Mosseveld; Danielle Newby; Fredrik Nyberg; Anna Ostropolets; Rae Woong Park; Albert Prats-Uribe; Gowtham A. Rao; Christian Reich; Jenna Reps; Peter Rijnbeek; Selva Muthu Kumaran Sathappan; Martijn Schuemie; Sarah Seager; Anthony Sena; Azza Shoaibi; Matthew Spotnitz; Marc A. Suchard; Joel Swerdel; Carmen Olga Torre; David Vizcaya; Haini Wen; Marcel de Wilde; Seng Chan You; Lin Zhang; Oleg Zhuk; Patrick Ryan; Daniel Prieto-Alhambra
Title: Safety of hydroxychloroquine, alone and in combination with azithromycin, in light of rapid wide-spread use for COVID-19: a multinational, network cohort and self-controlled case series study Document date: 2020_4_10
ID: 2hbcbvt6_40
Snippet: Plotting the propensity score distribution and assessment of covariate balance expressed as the standardized difference of the mean was undertaken for every covariate before and after propensity score adjustment. A standardized difference > 0.1 indicated a non-negligible imbalance between exposure cohorts. 43 The target and comparator cohort were compared using a univariate Cox proportional hazards model conditioned on the propensity score strata.....
Document: Plotting the propensity score distribution and assessment of covariate balance expressed as the standardized difference of the mean was undertaken for every covariate before and after propensity score adjustment. A standardized difference > 0.1 indicated a non-negligible imbalance between exposure cohorts. 43 The target and comparator cohort were compared using a univariate Cox proportional hazards model conditioned on the propensity score strata with treatment allocation as the sole explanatory variable. Negative control outcomes analyses and empirical calibration were used to . CC-BY-NC 4.0 International license It is made available under a author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
Search related documents:
Co phrase search for related documents- cc NC International license and comparator cohort target: 1
- cc NC International license and covariate balance: 1
- cc NC International license and International license: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
- cc NC International license and mean standardized difference: 1
- cc NC International license and propensity score: 1, 2
- comparator cohort and control outcome: 1, 2
- comparator cohort and empirical calibration: 1
- comparator cohort and International license: 1
- comparator cohort and negative control outcome: 1, 2
- comparator cohort and propensity score: 1, 2, 3
- comparator cohort target and International license: 1
- control outcome and covariate balance: 1
- control outcome and exposure cohort: 1
- control outcome and mean standardized difference: 1
- control outcome and negative control outcome: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
- covariate balance and International license: 1
- covariate balance and mean standardized difference: 1
- covariate balance and negative control outcome: 1
- International license and mean standardized difference: 1
Co phrase search for related documents, hyperlinks ordered by date