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 *

597 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16596572)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Estimators and confidence intervals for the marginal odds ratio using logistic regression and propensity score stratification.
    Stampf S; Graf E; Schmoor C; Schumacher M
    Stat Med; 2010 Mar; 29(7-8):760-9. PubMed ID: 20213703
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Meta-analyses of safety data: a comparison of exact versus asymptotic methods.
    Vandermeer B; Bialy L; Hooton N; Hartling L; Klassen TP; Johnston BC; Wiebe N
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2009 Aug; 18(4):421-32. PubMed ID: 18562399
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A comparison of confidence interval methods for the intraclass correlation coefficient in cluster randomized trials.
    Ukoumunne OC
    Stat Med; 2002 Dec; 21(24):3757-74. PubMed ID: 12483765
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. CD4+ guided antiretroviral treatment interruption in HIV infection: a meta-analysis.
    Seminari E; De Silvestri A; Boschi A; Tinelli C
    AIDS Rev; 2008; 10(4):236-44. PubMed ID: 19092979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Longitudinal and repeated cross-sectional cluster-randomization designs using mixed effects regression for binary outcomes: bias and coverage of frequentist and Bayesian methods.
    Localio AR; Berlin JA; Have TR
    Stat Med; 2006 Aug; 25(16):2720-36. PubMed ID: 16345043
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Confidence intervals for a random-effects meta-analysis based on Bartlett-type corrections.
    Noma H
    Stat Med; 2011 Dec; 30(28):3304-12. PubMed ID: 21964669
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. A likelihood approach to meta-analysis with random effects.
    Hardy RJ; Thompson SG
    Stat Med; 1996 Mar; 15(6):619-29. PubMed ID: 8731004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A logistic model for trend in 2 x 2 x kappa tables with applications to meta-analyses.
    Cook RJ; Walter SD
    Biometrics; 1997 Mar; 53(1):352-7. PubMed ID: 9147599
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Confidence intervals for random effects meta-analysis and robustness to publication bias.
    Henmi M; Copas JB
    Stat Med; 2010 Dec; 29(29):2969-83. PubMed ID: 20963748
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparison of the risk difference, risk ratio and odds ratio scales for quantifying the unadjusted intervention effect in cluster randomized trials.
    Ukoumunne OC; Forbes AB; Carlin JB; Gulliford MC
    Stat Med; 2008 Nov; 27(25):5143-55. PubMed ID: 18613226
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [Statistical analysis of community-based studies -- presentation and comparison of possible solutions with reference to statistical meta-analytic methods].
    Twardella D; Bruckner T; Blettner M
    Gesundheitswesen; 2005 Jan; 67(1):48-55. PubMed ID: 15672306
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Inference for odds ratio regression models with sparse dependent data.
    Hanfelt JJ; Liang KY
    Biometrics; 1998 Mar; 54(1):136-47. PubMed ID: 9544512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A simple confidence interval for meta-analysis.
    Sidik K; Jonkman JN
    Stat Med; 2002 Nov; 21(21):3153-9. PubMed ID: 12375296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Meta-analysis of community-based cluster randomization trials with binary outcomes.
    Darlington GA; Donner A
    Clin Trials; 2007; 4(5):491-8. PubMed ID: 17942465
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 30.