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 *

259 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16025540)

  • 1. Four-fold table cell frequencies imputation in meta analysis.
    Di Pietrantonj C
    Stat Med; 2006 Jul; 25(13):2299-322. PubMed ID: 16025540
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Inflation of type I error rate in two statistical tests for the detection of publication bias in meta-analyses with binary outcomes.
    Schwarzer G; Antes G; Schumacher M
    Stat Med; 2002 Sep; 21(17):2465-77. PubMed ID: 12205693
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. What to add to nothing? Use and avoidance of continuity corrections in meta-analysis of sparse data.
    Sweeting MJ; Sutton AJ; Lambert PC
    Stat Med; 2004 May; 23(9):1351-75. PubMed ID: 15116347
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. A simple method to correct for the design effect in systematic reviews of trials using paired dichotomous data.
    Perera R; Glasziou P
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2007 Sep; 60(9):975-8. PubMed ID: 17689815
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Meta-analysis of rare events: an update and sensitivity analysis of cardiovascular events in randomized trials of rosiglitazone.
    Dahabreh IJ; Economopoulos K
    Clin Trials; 2008; 5(2):116-20. PubMed ID: 18375649
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists.
    Nakagawa S; Cuthill IC
    Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc; 2007 Nov; 82(4):591-605. PubMed ID: 17944619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Much ado about nothing: a comparison of the performance of meta-analytical methods with rare events.
    Bradburn MJ; Deeks JJ; Berlin JA; Russell Localio A
    Stat Med; 2007 Jan; 26(1):53-77. PubMed ID: 16596572
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Empirical comparison of subgroup effects in conventional and individual patient data meta-analyses.
    Koopman L; van der Heijden GJ; Hoes AW; Grobbee DE; Rovers MM
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2008; 24(3):358-61. PubMed ID: 18601805
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Meta-analytic interval estimation for standardized and unstandardized mean differences.
    Bonett DG
    Psychol Methods; 2009 Sep; 14(3):225-38. PubMed ID: 19719359
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A comparison of methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis.
    Macaskill P; Walter SD; Irwig L
    Stat Med; 2001 Feb; 20(4):641-54. PubMed ID: 11223905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The relative benefits of meta-analysis conducted with individual participant data versus aggregated data.
    Cooper H; Patall EA
    Psychol Methods; 2009 Jun; 14(2):165-76. PubMed ID: 19485627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Confidence intervals for the overall effect size in random-effects meta-analysis.
    Sánchez-Meca J; Marín-Martínez F
    Psychol Methods; 2008 Mar; 13(1):31-48. PubMed ID: 18331152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Uncertainty method improved on best-worst case analysis in a binary meta-analysis.
    Gamble C; Hollis S
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2005 Jun; 58(6):579-88. PubMed ID: 15878471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Variance and confidence limits in validation studies based on comparison between three different types of measurements.
    Ferrari P; Kaaks R; Riboli E
    J Epidemiol Biostat; 2000; 5(5):303-13. PubMed ID: 11142606
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A method for the meta-analysis of mutually exclusive binary outcomes.
    Trikalinos TA; Olkin I
    Stat Med; 2008 Sep; 27(21):4279-300. PubMed ID: 18416445
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. How meta-analysis increases statistical power.
    Cohn LD; Becker BJ
    Psychol Methods; 2003 Sep; 8(3):243-53. PubMed ID: 14596489
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: part 6. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies.
    Manchikanti L; Datta S; Smith HS; Hirsch JA
    Pain Physician; 2009; 12(5):819-50. PubMed ID: 19787009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Why add anything to nothing? The arcsine difference as a measure of treatment effect in meta-analysis with zero cells.
    Rücker G; Schwarzer G; Carpenter J; Olkin I
    Stat Med; 2009 Feb; 28(5):721-38. PubMed ID: 19072749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.