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 *

164 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10347653)

  • 1. [The practice of systematic reviews. V. Heterogeneity between studies and subgroup analysis].
    Scholten RJ; Assendelft WJ; Kostense PJ; Bouter LM
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1999 Apr; 143(16):843-8. PubMed ID: 10347653
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. [Meta-analysis of the Italian studies on short-term effects of air pollution].
    Biggeri A; Bellini P; Terracini B;
    Epidemiol Prev; 2001; 25(2 Suppl):1-71. PubMed ID: 11515188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. [Practice of systematic reviews. VII. Pooling of results from observational studies].
    Zeegers MP; Heisterkamp SH; Kostense PJ; van der Windt DA; Scholten RJ
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2000 Jul; 144(29):1393-7. PubMed ID: 10923147
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Meta-analysis: when and how.
    Imperiale TF
    Hepatology; 1999 Jun; 29(6 Suppl):26S-31S. PubMed ID: 10386080
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Imputing variance estimates do not alter the conclusions of a meta-analysis with continuous outcomes: a case study of changes in renal function after living kidney donation.
    Thiessen Philbrook H; Barrowman N; Garg AX
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2007 Mar; 60(3):228-40. PubMed ID: 17292016
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Evaluating systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
    Schlesselman JJ; Collins JA
    Semin Reprod Med; 2003 Feb; 21(1):95-105. PubMed ID: 12806564
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Fixed- versus random-effects models in meta-analysis: model properties and an empirical comparison of differences in results.
    Schmidt FL; Oh IS; Hayes TL
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2009 Feb; 62(Pt 1):97-128. PubMed ID: 18001516
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: part 6. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies.
    Manchikanti L; Datta S; Smith HS; Hirsch JA
    Pain Physician; 2009; 12(5):819-50. PubMed ID: 19787009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Confidence intervals for the amount of heterogeneity in meta-analysis.
    Viechtbauer W
    Stat Med; 2007 Jan; 26(1):37-52. PubMed ID: 16463355
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Exploring sources of heterogeneity in systematic reviews of diagnostic tests.
    Lijmer JG; Bossuyt PM; Heisterkamp SH
    Stat Med; 2002 Jun; 21(11):1525-37. PubMed ID: 12111918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. An overview of methods and empirical comparison of aggregate data and individual patient data results for investigating heterogeneity in meta-analysis of time-to-event outcomes.
    Smith CT; Williamson PR; Marson AG
    J Eval Clin Pract; 2005 Oct; 11(5):468-78. PubMed ID: 16164588
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Meta-analytic interval estimation for standardized and unstandardized mean differences.
    Bonett DG
    Psychol Methods; 2009 Sep; 14(3):225-38. PubMed ID: 19719359
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Methodologic issues in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
    Montori VM; Swiontkowski MF; Cook DJ
    Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2003 Aug; (413):43-54. PubMed ID: 12897595
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. [Statistical analysis of community-based studies -- presentation and comparison of possible solutions with reference to statistical meta-analytic methods].
    Twardella D; Bruckner T; Blettner M
    Gesundheitswesen; 2005 Jan; 67(1):48-55. PubMed ID: 15672306
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in 'meta-epidemiological' research.
    Sterne JA; Jüni P; Schulz KF; Altman DG; Bartlett C; Egger M
    Stat Med; 2002 Jun; 21(11):1513-24. PubMed ID: 12111917
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A comparison of yield in a non-systematic and a systematic review.
    Downer MC; Moles DR; Speight PM
    Community Dent Health; 2004 Jun; 21(2):138-42. PubMed ID: 15228202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A meta-regression analysis shows no impact of design characteristics on outcome in trials on tension-type headaches.
    Verhagen AP; de Vet HC; Willemsen S; Stijnen T
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Aug; 61(8):813-8. PubMed ID: 18359608
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. How to read a review paper.
    Callcut RA; Branson RD
    Respir Care; 2009 Oct; 54(10):1379-85. PubMed ID: 19796419
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Further statistics in dentistry Part 8: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
    Petrie A; Bulman JS; Osborn JF
    Br Dent J; 2003 Jan; 194(2):73-8. PubMed ID: 12577072
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [The statistical analysis in systemic reviews in surgery].
    Bazylev VV; Belov IuV
    Khirurgiia (Mosk); 2008; (4):48-54. PubMed ID: 18454109
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.