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 *

140 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10979745)

  • 1. [Guidelines as the substance of quality management].
    Lorenz W
    Internist (Berl); 2000 Jul; 41(7):M163. PubMed ID: 10979745
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. [Life is better without evidence].
    Füessl HS
    MMW Fortschr Med; 2010 Oct; 152(40):17. PubMed ID: 21049632
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Guideline panels should not GRADE good practice statements.
    Guyatt GH; Schünemann HJ; Djulbegovic B; Akl EA
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 May; 68(5):597-600. PubMed ID: 25660962
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A GRADE Working Group approach for rating the quality of treatment effect estimates from network meta-analysis.
    Puhan MA; Schünemann HJ; Murad MH; Li T; Brignardello-Petersen R; Singh JA; Kessels AG; Guyatt GH;
    BMJ; 2014 Sep; 349():g5630. PubMed ID: 25252733
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The NICE process for developing quality standards and indicators.
    Bennett B; Coventry E; Greenway N; Minchin M
    Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes; 2014; 108(8-9):481-6. PubMed ID: 25523846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Strength of evidence and handling uncertainty: practical considerations and general observations.
    Bedford M; Pettersen K; Minhas R
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2011 Dec; 64(12):1272-4. PubMed ID: 21889308
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Evidence-based quality of care.
    Knottnerus JA; Tugwell P
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2010 Dec; 63(12):1279-80. PubMed ID: 20971421
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [Quality assurance in internal medicine].
    Meyer J
    Internist (Berl); 2000 Jul; 41(7):M164-5. PubMed ID: 10979746
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [Acute backache guideline clearing process. Methodology and results of formal evaluation].
    Thomeczek C; Lampert U; Brune K; Hasenbring M; Krämer J; Niebling W; Raspe H; Stäbler A; Steudel WI; Willburger RE; Zeilhofer HU; Kirchner H; Ollenschläger G;
    Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb; 2003; 141(1):11-7. PubMed ID: 12647734
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Possibilities for transborder cooperation in breast cancer care in Europe: a comparative analysis regarding the content, quality and evidence use of breast cancer guidelines.
    Wennekes L; Hermens RP; van Heumen K; Runde V; Schoelen H; Wollersheim HC; Grol RP; de Mulder PH; Ottevanger PB
    Breast; 2008 Oct; 17(5):464-71. PubMed ID: 18455399
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. [Evidence based medicine. Wish and reality in routing surgical practice].
    Bauer H
    Chirurg; 2005 Aug; 76(8):795-6. PubMed ID: 15971033
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [The GRADE system: a change in the way of assessing the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations].
    Neumann I; Pantoja T; Peñaloza B; Cifuentes L; Rada G
    Rev Med Chil; 2014 May; 142(5):630-5. PubMed ID: 25427021
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [New guidelines put their faith in European standards. Not rigid instruction but guiding principle].
    Aumiller J
    MMW Fortschr Med; 2006 Feb; 148(7):41, 43-4. PubMed ID: 16529362
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Quality and strength: the GRADE system for formulating recommendations in clinical practice guidelines.
    Alonso-Coello P; Rigau D; Sanabria AJ; Plaza V; Miravitlles M; Martinez L
    Arch Bronconeumol; 2013 Jun; 49(6):261-7. PubMed ID: 23434203
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [Guidelines are made more transparent with the GRADE method: considerations for recommendations are explicit in the new method].
    Boluyt N; Rottier BL; Langendam MW
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2012; 156(25):A4379. PubMed ID: 22748366
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The demand for proof of quality.
    Patti JA
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2011 Dec; 8(12):817. PubMed ID: 22136992
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Special Statement: Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) update.
    ; Norton ME; Kuller JA; Metz TD
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2021 Apr; 224(4):B24-B28. PubMed ID: 33347844
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. [GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes].
    Langer G; Meerpohl JJ; Perleth M; Gartlehner G; Kaminski-Hartenthaler A; Schünemann H
    Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes; 2012; 106(5):369-76. PubMed ID: 22818161
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines: who watches the watchmen?
    Nagler EV; Ball S
    Clin Endocrinol (Oxf); 2013 Feb; 78(2):181-2. PubMed ID: 22943208
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Need for high-standard translation methodology for the dissemination of guidelines.
    Henrotin Y
    Osteoarthritis Cartilage; 2009 Dec; 17(12):1536-8. PubMed ID: 19583960
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.