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 *

110 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12002964)

  • 1. Comparison of two random-effects methods of meta-analysis.
    Hall SM; Brannick MT
    J Appl Psychol; 2002 Apr; 87(2):377-89. PubMed ID: 12002964
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Meta-analysis of correlation coefficients: a Monte Carlo comparison of fixed- and random-effects methods.
    Field AP
    Psychol Methods; 2001 Jun; 6(2):161-80. PubMed ID: 11411440
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Quantifying uncertainty in the meta-analytic lower bound estimate.
    Brannick MT; Potter S; Teng Y
    Psychol Methods; 2019 Dec; 24(6):754-773. PubMed ID: 31094545
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Is the meta-analysis of correlation coefficients accurate when population correlations vary?
    Field AP
    Psychol Methods; 2005 Dec; 10(4):444-67. PubMed ID: 16392999
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Meta-analysis of correlations revisited: attempted replication and extension of Field's (2001) simulation studies.
    Hafdahl AR; Williams MA
    Psychol Methods; 2009 Mar; 14(1):24-42. PubMed ID: 19271846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Capturing the underlying distribution in meta-analysis: Credibility and tolerance intervals.
    Brannick MT; French KA; Rothstein HR; Kiselica AM; Apostoloski N
    Res Synth Methods; 2021 May; 12(3):264-290. PubMed ID: 33543583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Assessing meta-regression methods for examining moderator relationships with dependent effect sizes: A Monte Carlo simulation.
    López-López JA; Van den Noortgate W; Tanner-Smith EE; Wilson SJ; Lipsey MW
    Res Synth Methods; 2017 Dec; 8(4):435-450. PubMed ID: 28556477
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Estimation of an overall standardized mean difference in random-effects meta-analysis if the distribution of random effects departs from normal.
    Rubio-Aparicio M; López-López JA; Sánchez-Meca J; Marín-Martínez F; Viechtbauer W; Van den Noortgate W
    Res Synth Methods; 2018 Sep; 9(3):489-503. PubMed ID: 29989344
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Bootstrap confidence intervals for the mean correlation corrected for Case IV range restriction: a more adequate procedure for meta-analysis.
    Li JC; Cui Y; Chan W
    J Appl Psychol; 2013 Jan; 98(1):183-93. PubMed ID: 23088495
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Synthesizing single-case studies: a Monte Carlo examination of a three-level meta-analytic model.
    Owens CM; Ferron JM
    Behav Res Methods; 2012 Sep; 44(3):795-805. PubMed ID: 22180105
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Meta-analyzing dependent correlations with correction for artifacts that multiplicatively attenuate the true correlation.
    Cheung SF; Chan DK; Sun RW
    Behav Res Methods; 2019 Apr; 51(2):793-810. PubMed ID: 30136040
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Bias and correction for the log response ratio in ecological meta-analysis.
    Lajeunesse MJ
    Ecology; 2015 Aug; 96(8):2056-63. PubMed ID: 26405731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Correcting for indirect range restriction in meta-analysis: testing a new meta-analytic procedure.
    Le H; Schmidt FL
    Psychol Methods; 2006 Dec; 11(4):416-38. PubMed ID: 17154755
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [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]  

  • 17. Flexible parametric models for random-effects distributions.
    Lee KJ; Thompson SG
    Stat Med; 2008 Feb; 27(3):418-34. PubMed ID: 17477434
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Publication bias as a function of study characteristics.
    Coburn KM; Vevea JL
    Psychol Methods; 2015 Sep; 20(3):310-30. PubMed ID: 26348731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Deficits and remedy of the standard random effects methods in meta-analysis.
    Ziegler S; Koch A; Victor N
    Methods Inf Med; 2001 May; 40(2):148-55. PubMed ID: 11424301
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Parameter accuracy in meta-analyses of factor structures.
    Gnambs T; Staufenbiel T
    Res Synth Methods; 2016 Jun; 7(2):168-86. PubMed ID: 27286902
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.