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 *

231 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10472946)

  • 1. Random-effects meta-analyses are not always conservative.
    Poole C; Greenland S
    Am J Epidemiol; 1999 Sep; 150(5):469-75. PubMed ID: 10472946
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Response to letter to the editor from Dr Rahman Shiri: The challenging topic of suicide across occupational groups.
    Niedhammer I; Milner A; Witt K; Klingelschmidt J; Khireddine-Medouni I; Alexopoulos EC; Toivanen S; Chastang JF; LaMontagne AD
    Scand J Work Environ Health; 2018 Jan; 44(1):108-110. PubMed ID: 29218357
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Meta-analyses in systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in perinatal medicine: comparison of fixed and random effects models.
    Villar J; Mackey ME; Carroli G; Donner A
    Stat Med; 2001 Dec; 20(23):3635-47. PubMed ID: 11746343
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Confidence intervals for random effects meta-analysis and robustness to publication bias.
    Henmi M; Copas JB
    Stat Med; 2010 Dec; 29(29):2969-83. PubMed ID: 20963748
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Neither fixed nor random: weighted least squares meta-analysis.
    Stanley TD; Doucouliagos H
    Stat Med; 2015 Jun; 34(13):2116-27. PubMed ID: 25809462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Statistical Primer: heterogeneity, random- or fixed-effects model analyses?
    Barili F; Parolari A; Kappetein PA; Freemantle N
    Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg; 2018 Sep; 27(3):317-321. PubMed ID: 29868857
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Accounting for heterogeneity in meta-analysis using a multiplicative model-an empirical study.
    Mawdsley D; Higgins JP; Sutton AJ; Abrams KR
    Res Synth Methods; 2017 Mar; 8(1):43-52. PubMed ID: 27259973
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [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]  

  • 9. Invited commentary: a critical look at some popular meta-analytic methods.
    Greenland S
    Am J Epidemiol; 1994 Aug; 140(3):290-6. PubMed ID: 8030632
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Hartung-Knapp method is not always conservative compared with fixed-effect meta-analysis.
    Wiksten A; Rücker G; Schwarzer G
    Stat Med; 2016 Jul; 35(15):2503-15. PubMed ID: 26842654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A random-effects regression model for meta-analysis.
    Berkey CS; Hoaglin DC; Mosteller F; Colditz GA
    Stat Med; 1995 Feb; 14(4):395-411. PubMed ID: 7746979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Neither fixed nor random: weighted least squares meta-regression.
    Stanley TD; Doucouliagos H
    Res Synth Methods; 2017 Mar; 8(1):19-42. PubMed ID: 27322495
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Environmental risk factors and multiple sclerosis: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
    Belbasis L; Bellou V; Evangelou E; Ioannidis JP; Tzoulaki I
    Lancet Neurol; 2015 Mar; 14(3):263-73. PubMed ID: 25662901
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Empirical evaluation suggests Copas selection model preferable to trim-and-fill method for selection bias in meta-analysis.
    Schwarzer G; Carpenter J; Rücker G
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2010 Mar; 63(3):282-8. PubMed ID: 19836925
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [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]  

  • 16. Thresholds for statistical and clinical significance in systematic reviews with meta-analytic methods.
    Jakobsen JC; Wetterslev J; Winkel P; Lange T; Gluud C
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2014 Nov; 14():120. PubMed ID: 25416419
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Meta-STEPP with random effects.
    Wang XV; Cole B; Bonetti M; Gelber RD
    Res Synth Methods; 2018 Jun; 9(2):312-317. PubMed ID: 29281174
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A random effects meta-analysis model with Box-Cox transformation.
    Yamaguchi Y; Maruo K; Partlett C; Riley RD
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Jul; 17(1):109. PubMed ID: 28724350
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Understanding and evaluating meta-analysis.
    Dawson DV; Pihlstrom BL; Blanchette DR
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2016 Apr; 147(4):264-70. PubMed ID: 26705602
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.