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 *

231 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16533396)

  • 1. Methodological quality of systematic reviews of animal studies: a survey of reviews of basic research.
    Mignini LE; Khan KS
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2006 Mar; 6():10. PubMed ID: 16533396
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A review of the methodological features of systematic reviews in fetal medicine.
    Knox EM; Thangaratinam S; Kilby MD; Khan KS
    Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2009 Oct; 146(2):121-8. PubMed ID: 19515478
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Publication bias in animal research: a systematic review protocol.
    Briel M; Müller KF; Meerpohl JJ; von Elm E; Lang B; Motschall E; Gloy V; Lamontagne F; Schwarzer G; Bassler D;
    Syst Rev; 2013 Apr; 2():23. PubMed ID: 23621910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The methodological quality of systematic reviews of animal studies in dentistry.
    Faggion CM; Listl S; Giannakopoulos NN
    Vet J; 2012 May; 192(2):140-7. PubMed ID: 21924652
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Methodological quality of systematic reviews in subfertility: a comparison of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in assisted reproductive technologies.
    Windsor B; Popovich I; Jordan V; Showell M; Shea B; Farquhar C
    Hum Reprod; 2012 Dec; 27(12):3460-6. PubMed ID: 23034152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Methodological quality of systematic reviews on influenza vaccination.
    Remschmidt C; Wichmann O; Harder T
    Vaccine; 2014 Mar; 32(15):1678-84. PubMed ID: 24513008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Reviewing existing knowledge prior to conducting animal studies.
    Knight A
    Altern Lab Anim; 2008 Dec; 36(6):709-12. PubMed ID: 19154097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of preclinical studies: publication bias in laboratory animal experiments.
    Korevaar DA; Hooft L; ter Riet G
    Lab Anim; 2011 Oct; 45(4):225-30. PubMed ID: 21737463
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Systematic reviews of animal studies; missing link in translational research?
    van Luijk J; Bakker B; Rovers MM; Ritskes-Hoitinga M; de Vries RB; Leenaars M
    PLoS One; 2014; 9(3):e89981. PubMed ID: 24670965
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews in the orthopaedic literature.
    Gagnier JJ; Kellam PJ
    J Bone Joint Surg Am; 2013 Jun; 95(11):e771-7. PubMed ID: 23780547
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. A review of methodological quality of systematic reviews on multiple pregnancies.
    Jayaram PM; Khan KS
    J Obstet Gynaecol; 2006 Nov; 26(8):731-5. PubMed ID: 17130017
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The science of systematic reviewing studies of diagnostic tests.
    Oosterhuis WP; Niessen RW; Bossuyt PM
    Clin Chem Lab Med; 2000 Jul; 38(7):577-88. PubMed ID: 11028761
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Cochrane reviews used more rigorous methods than non-Cochrane reviews: survey of systematic reviews in physiotherapy.
    Moseley AM; Elkins MR; Herbert RD; Maher CG; Sherrington C
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Oct; 62(10):1021-30. PubMed ID: 19282144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Methodological quality is underrated in systematic reviews and meta-analyses in health psychology.
    Oliveras I; Losilla JM; Vives J
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2017 Jun; 86():59-70. PubMed ID: 28499846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Meta-analysis for orthodontists: Part II--Is all that glitters gold?
    Papageorgiou SN
    J Orthod; 2014 Dec; 41(4):327-36. PubMed ID: 25404669
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Methodological quality and descriptive characteristics of prosthodontic-related systematic reviews.
    Aziz T; Compton S; Nassar U; Matthews D; Ansari K; Flores-Mir C
    J Oral Rehabil; 2013 Apr; 40(4):263-78. PubMed ID: 23330989
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Animal research as a basis for clinical trials.
    Faggion CM
    Eur J Oral Sci; 2015 Apr; 123(2):61-4. PubMed ID: 25684017
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Dissemination bias in systematic reviews of animal research: a systematic review.
    Mueller KF; Briel M; Strech D; Meerpohl JJ; Lang B; Motschall E; Gloy V; Lamontagne F; Bassler D
    PLoS One; 2014; 9(12):e116016. PubMed ID: 25541734
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal experiments with guidelines for reporting.
    Peters JL; Sutton AJ; Jones DR; Rushton L; Abrams KR
    J Environ Sci Health B; 2006; 41(7):1245-58. PubMed ID: 16923604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.