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 *

114 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16018920)

  • 1. Procedures that assess inconsistency in meta-analyses can assess the likelihood of response bias in multiwave surveys.
    Montori VM; Leung TW; Walter SD; Guyatt GH
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2005 Aug; 58(8):856-8. PubMed ID: 16018920
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Geographic Information System mapping as a tool to assess nonresponse bias in survey research.
    Hansen RA; Henley AC; Brouwer ES; Oraefo AN; Roth MT
    Res Social Adm Pharm; 2007 Sep; 3(3):249-64. PubMed ID: 17945157
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The appropriateness of asymmetry tests for publication bias in meta-analyses: a large survey.
    Ioannidis JP; Trikalinos TA
    CMAJ; 2007 Apr; 176(8):1091-6. PubMed ID: 17420491
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 index?
    Huedo-Medina TB; Sánchez-Meca J; Marín-Martínez F; Botella J
    Psychol Methods; 2006 Jun; 11(2):193-206. PubMed ID: 16784338
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. E-mail or snail mail? Randomized controlled trial on which works better for surveys.
    Seguin R; Godwin M; MacDonald S; McCall M
    Can Fam Physician; 2004 Mar; 50():414-9. PubMed ID: 15318679
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Publication bias was not a good reason to discourage trials with low power.
    Borm GF; den Heijer M; Zielhuis GA
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Jan; 62(1):47.e1-10. PubMed ID: 18620841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Hypothesis tests for population heterogeneity in meta-analysis.
    Viechtbauer W
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2007 May; 60(Pt 1):29-60. PubMed ID: 17535578
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Meta-analysis under the spotlight: focused on a meta-analysis of ventilator weaning.
    Tobin MJ; Jubran A
    Crit Care Med; 2008 Jan; 36(1):1-7. PubMed ID: 18007269
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Nonresponse bias in a mail survey of physicians.
    McFarlane E; Olmsted MG; Murphy J; Hill CA
    Eval Health Prof; 2007 Jun; 30(2):170-85. PubMed ID: 17476029
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Empirical evaluation showed that the Copas selection model provided a useful summary in 80% of meta-analyses.
    Carpenter JR; Schwarzer G; Rücker G; Künstler R
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Jun; 62(6):624-631.e4. PubMed ID: 19282148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Mixed-mode administration reduced bias and enhanced poststratification adjustments in a health behavior survey.
    Baines AD; Partin MR; Davern M; Rockwood TH
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2007 Dec; 60(12):1246-55. PubMed ID: 17998079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Eliciting survey cooperation: incentives, self-interest, and norms of cooperation.
    Kropf ME; Blair J
    Eval Rev; 2005 Dec; 29(6):559-75. PubMed ID: 16244052
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. How to increase response rates to postal questionnaires.
    Richards D
    Evid Based Dent; 2007; 8(2):53-4. PubMed ID: 17589494
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. An exploratory test for an excess of significant findings.
    Ioannidis JP; Trikalinos TA
    Clin Trials; 2007; 4(3):245-53. PubMed ID: 17715249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Selective reporting of adjusted estimates in observational epidemiology studies: reasons and implications for meta-analyses.
    Peters J; Mengersen K
    Eval Health Prof; 2008 Dec; 31(4):370-89. PubMed ID: 19000980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Evaluating telephone follow-up of a mail survey of community pharmacies.
    Westrick SC; Mount JK
    Res Social Adm Pharm; 2007 Jun; 3(2):160-82. PubMed ID: 17561218
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.