BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

105 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1418592)

  • 21. Literature reviews: evolution of a research methodology.
    Evans D; Kowanko I
    Aust J Adv Nurs; 2000 Dec-2001 Feb; 18(2):33-8. PubMed ID: 11878498
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Deriving treatment recommendations from evidence within randomized trials. The role and limitation of meta-analysis.
    Freemantle N; Mason J; Eccles M
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 1999; 15(2):304-15. PubMed ID: 10507190
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Evaluation of underlying risk as a source of heterogeneity in meta-analyses: a simulation study of Bayesian and frequentist implementations of three models.
    Dohoo I; Stryhn H; Sanchez J
    Prev Vet Med; 2007 Sep; 81(1-3):38-55. PubMed ID: 17477995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. Meta-analysis: strategies to strengthen postanesthesia care unit study results.
    Summers S
    J Post Anesth Nurs; 1993 Aug; 8(4):286-9. PubMed ID: 8377140
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Pulling it all together: the importance of integrative research reviews and meta-analyses in nursing.
    Harrison LL
    J Adv Nurs; 1996 Aug; 24(2):224-5. PubMed ID: 8858423
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Effect of formal statistical significance on the credibility of observational associations.
    Ioannidis JP
    Am J Epidemiol; 2008 Aug; 168(4):374-83; discussion 384-90. PubMed ID: 18611956
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews.
    Jadad AR; Cook DJ; Browman GP
    CMAJ; 1997 May; 156(10):1411-6. PubMed ID: 9164400
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Meta-analysis based on standardized effects is unreliable.
    Cummings P
    Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med; 2004 Jun; 158(6):595-7. PubMed ID: 15184227
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Problems with meta-analysis.
    Herbison P
    N Z Med J; 1999 Feb; 112(1081):38-41. PubMed ID: 10078215
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. [Under the meta-scope: possibilities and limits of meta-analyses].
    Egger M
    Schweiz Med Wochenschr; 1998 Nov; 128(48):1893-901. PubMed ID: 9879617
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Meta-analysis in occupational epidemiology: a review of practice.
    McElvenny DM; Armstrong BG; Järup L; Higgins JP
    Occup Med (Lond); 2004 Aug; 54(5):336-44. PubMed ID: 15289591
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. [Meta-analysis: the science of review in Neurology].
    Allam MF; Del Castillo AS; Navajas RF
    Rev Neurol; 2005 Feb 16-28; 40(4):222-8. PubMed ID: 15765317
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Meta-analysis: an update.
    Sacks HS; Reitman D; Pagano D; Kupelnick B
    Mt Sinai J Med; 1996; 63(3-4):216-24. PubMed ID: 8692168
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Robustness assessments are needed to reduce bias in meta-analyses that include zero-event randomized trials.
    Keus F; Wetterslev J; Gluud C; Gooszen HG; van Laarhoven CJ
    Am J Gastroenterol; 2009 Mar; 104(3):546-51. PubMed ID: 19262513
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Meta-analysis: an introduction using regression models.
    Rhodes W
    Eval Rev; 2012 Feb; 36(1):24-71. PubMed ID: 22615500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Meta-analysis for descriptive research.
    Reynolds NR; Timmerman G; Anderson J; Stevenson JS
    Res Nurs Health; 1992 Dec; 15(6):467-75. PubMed ID: 1448578
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Arguments for and against standardized mean differences (effect sizes).
    Cummings P
    Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med; 2011 Jul; 165(7):592-6. PubMed ID: 21727271
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Meta-analysis techniques.
    Graney MJ; Engle VF
    J Gerontol Nurs; 1990 Sep; 16(9):16-9. PubMed ID: 2398226
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.