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 *

253 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16991104)

  • 21. [The practice of systematic reviews. V. Heterogeneity between studies and subgroup analysis].
    Scholten RJ; Assendelft WJ; Kostense PJ; Bouter LM
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1999 Apr; 143(16):843-8. PubMed ID: 10347653
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. The impact of stopping rules on heterogeneity of results in overviews of clinical trials.
    Hughes MD; Freedman LS; Pocock SJ
    Biometrics; 1992 Mar; 48(1):41-53. PubMed ID: 1581492
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Performance of the trim and fill method in the presence of publication bias and between-study heterogeneity.
    Peters JL; Sutton AJ; Jones DR; Abrams KR; Rushton L
    Stat Med; 2007 Nov; 26(25):4544-62. PubMed ID: 17476644
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. Arcsine test for publication bias in meta-analyses with binary outcomes.
    Rücker G; Schwarzer G; Carpenter J
    Stat Med; 2008 Feb; 27(5):746-63. PubMed ID: 17592831
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Random-effects model for meta-analysis of clinical trials: an update.
    DerSimonian R; Kacker R
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2007 Feb; 28(2):105-14. PubMed ID: 16807131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Meta-analysis of binary data: which within study variance estimate to use?
    Chang BH; Waternaux C; Lipsitz S
    Stat Med; 2001 Jul; 20(13):1947-56. PubMed ID: 11427951
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Meta-analysis in medical research: potentials and limitations.
    Zwahlen M; Renehan A; Egger M
    Urol Oncol; 2008; 26(3):320-9. PubMed ID: 18452828
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. Consequences of event rate heterogeneity across non-randomized study sub-groups.
    Eberly LE
    Stat Med; 2004 Jul; 23(13):2023-36. PubMed ID: 15211600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Quality of reporting of cancer prognostic marker studies: association with reported prognostic effect.
    Kyzas PA; Denaxa-Kyza D; Ioannidis JP
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2007 Feb; 99(3):236-43. PubMed ID: 17284718
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Adjusting for publication bias in the presence of heterogeneity.
    Terrin N; Schmid CH; Lau J; Olkin I
    Stat Med; 2003 Jul; 22(13):2113-26. PubMed ID: 12820277
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Inferences about the between-study variance in meta-analysis with normally distributed outcomes.
    Tian L
    Biom J; 2008 Apr; 50(2):248-56. PubMed ID: 18383448
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Estimating risk difference from relative association measures in meta-analysis can infrequently pose interpretational challenges.
    Murad MH; Montori VM; Walter SD; Guyatt GH
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Aug; 62(8):865-7. PubMed ID: 19230610
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Extreme between-study homogeneity in meta-analyses could offer useful insights.
    Ioannidis JP; Trikalinos TA; Zintzaras E
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2006 Oct; 59(10):1023-32. PubMed ID: 16980141
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. Apparently conclusive meta-analyses may be inconclusive--Trial sequential analysis adjustment of random error risk due to repetitive testing of accumulating data in apparently conclusive neonatal meta-analyses.
    Brok J; Thorlund K; Wetterslev J; Gluud C
    Int J Epidemiol; 2009 Feb; 38(1):287-98. PubMed ID: 18824466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Trial sequential analysis reveals insufficient information size and potentially false positive results in many meta-analyses.
    Brok J; Thorlund K; Gluud C; Wetterslev J
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Aug; 61(8):763-9. PubMed ID: 18411040
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.