These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

237 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10150179)

  • 41. Capture-recapture is a potentially useful method for assessing publication bias.
    Bennett DA; Latham NK; Stretton C; Anderson CS
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2004 Apr; 57(4):349-57. PubMed ID: 15135835
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Industry sponsorship in research and publishing: who is really to blame for perceived bias?
    Amsden GW
    Ann Pharmacother; 2004 Apr; 38(4):714-6. PubMed ID: 14982974
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Meta-analysis: Methods, strengths, weaknesses, and political uses.
    Noble JH
    J Lab Clin Med; 2006 Jan; 147(1):7-20. PubMed ID: 16443000
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. [Swedish clinical trials and publishing frequency].
    Norlund A
    Lakartidningen; 2003 Aug; 100(34):2627. PubMed ID: 12968329
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. The publication process itself was the major cause of publication bias in genetic epidemiology.
    Calnan M; Smith GD; Sterne JA
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2006 Dec; 59(12):1312-8. PubMed ID: 17098574
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. The file-drawer problem revisited: a general weighted method for calculating fail-safe numbers in meta-analysis.
    Rosenberg MS
    Evolution; 2005 Feb; 59(2):464-8. PubMed ID: 15807430
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. [Publishing of scientific studies is no longer dependent on considerations of space in medical journals].
    Eliasson M
    Lakartidningen; 2001 Nov; 98(47):5394. PubMed ID: 11763644
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Interpretation of tests of heterogeneity and bias in meta-analysis.
    Ioannidis JP
    J Eval Clin Pract; 2008 Oct; 14(5):951-7. PubMed ID: 19018930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Inductive inference and experimental designs: The CONSORT and QUOROM statements.
    Lakhani KH
    Vet J; 2001 Mar; 161(2):102-3. PubMed ID: 11243679
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Clinical trial registration in physiotherapy journals: recommendations from the International Society of Physiotherapy Journal Editors.
    Costa LO; Christine Lin CW; Grossi DB; Mancini MC; Swisher AK; Cook C; Vaughn D; Elkins MR; Sheikh U; Moore A; Jull G; Craik RL; Maher CG; de Jesus Guirro RR; Marques AP; Harms M; Brooks D; Simoneau GG; Strupstad JH
    Man Ther; 2013 Feb; 18(1):1-3. PubMed ID: 23158021
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. [Selective reporting of positive outcomes in randomised trials--secondary publication.. A comparison of protocols with published reports].
    Hróbjartsson A; Chan AW; Haahr MT; Gøtzsche PC; Altman DG
    Ugeskr Laeger; 2005 Aug; 167(34):3189-91. PubMed ID: 16117920
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. In an empirical evaluation of the funnel plot, researchers could not visually identify publication bias.
    Terrin N; Schmid CH; Lau J
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2005 Sep; 58(9):894-901. PubMed ID: 16085192
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Avoiding legal and ethical pitfalls of industry-sponsored research: the co-existence of research, scholarship, and marketing in the pharmaceutical industry.
    Dorfman HL; Reig LP
    Food Drug Law J; 2004; 59(4):595-615. PubMed ID: 15880876
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Rethinking credible evidence synthesis.
    Doshi P; Jones M; Jefferson T
    BMJ; 2012 Jan; 344():d7898. PubMed ID: 22252039
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Assessment of publication bias for the surgeon scientist.
    Mahid SS; Qadan M; Hornung CA; Galandiuk S
    Br J Surg; 2008 Aug; 95(8):943-9. PubMed ID: 18618864
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Searching for unpublished trials in Cochrane reviews may not be worth the effort.
    van Driel ML; De Sutter A; De Maeseneer J; Christiaens T
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Aug; 62(8):838-844.e3. PubMed ID: 19128939
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Increase in studies of publication bias coincided with increasing use of meta-analysis.
    Song F; Gilbody S
    BMJ; 1998 Feb; 316(7129):471. PubMed ID: 9492690
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. "Take my data--please!" Medical Editors Trial Amnesty (META).
    J Child Neurol; 1998 Jan; 13(1):46. PubMed ID: 9477248
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Publication bias: the problem that won't go away.
    Dickersin K; Min YI
    Ann N Y Acad Sci; 1993 Dec; 703():135-46; discussion 146-8. PubMed ID: 8192291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. The peer review congresses: improving peer review and biomedical publication.
    Steinbrook R
    JAMA; 2013 Nov; 310(17):1799-800. PubMed ID: 24126455
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.