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 *

202 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17251927)

  • 1. Limited evidence for effects of diet for type 2 diabetes from systematic reviews.
    van de Laar FA; Akkermans RP; van Binsbergen JJ
    Eur J Clin Nutr; 2007 Aug; 61(8):929-37. PubMed ID: 17251927
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management, part I: introduction and general considerations.
    Manchikanti L
    Pain Physician; 2008; 11(2):161-86. PubMed ID: 18354710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The quality of reports of critical care meta-analyses in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: an independent appraisal.
    Delaney A; Bagshaw SM; Ferland A; Laupland K; Manns B; Doig C
    Crit Care Med; 2007 Feb; 35(2):589-94. PubMed ID: 17205029
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews in the emergency medicine literature.
    Kelly KD; Travers A; Dorgan M; Slater L; Rowe BH
    Ann Emerg Med; 2001 Nov; 38(5):518-26. PubMed ID: 11679863
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. [Systematic reviews and meta-analysis in laboratory medicine: principles and methods].
    Watine J
    Ann Biol Clin (Paris); 2004; 62(6):611-27. PubMed ID: 15563420
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Scope for improvement in the quality of reporting of systematic reviews. From the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group.
    Shea B; Bouter LM; Grimshaw JM; Francis D; Ortiz Z; Wells GA; Tugwell PS; Boers M
    J Rheumatol; 2006 Jan; 33(1):9-15. PubMed ID: 16267878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Evaluating systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
    Schlesselman JJ; Collins JA
    Semin Reprod Med; 2003 Feb; 21(1):95-105. PubMed ID: 12806564
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: an illustrated, step-by-step guide.
    Pai M; McCulloch M; Gorman JD; Pai N; Enanoria W; Kennedy G; Tharyan P; Colford JM
    Natl Med J India; 2004; 17(2):86-95. PubMed ID: 15141602
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Methodologic issues in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
    Montori VM; Swiontkowski MF; Cook DJ
    Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2003 Aug; (413):43-54. PubMed ID: 12897595
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Systematic reviews of adverse effects of drug interventions: a survey of their conduct and reporting quality.
    Cornelius VR; Perrio MJ; Shakir SA; Smith LA
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2009 Dec; 18(12):1223-31. PubMed ID: 19757414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Primer: strengths and weaknesses of meta-analysis.
    Finckh A; Tramèr MR
    Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol; 2008 Mar; 4(3):146-52. PubMed ID: 18227829
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. An analysis of systematic reviews indicated low incorpororation of results from clinical trial quality assessment.
    de Craen AJ; van Vliet HA; Helmerhorst FM
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2005 Mar; 58(3):311-3. PubMed ID: 15718121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. How to use a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.
    Tseng TY; Dahm P; Poolman RW; Preminger GM; Canales BJ; Montori VM
    J Urol; 2008 Oct; 180(4):1249-56. PubMed ID: 18707741
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Systematic reviews of medical evidence: the use of meta-analysis in obstetrics and gynecology.
    Peipert JF; Bracken MB
    Obstet Gynecol; 1997 Apr; 89(4):628-33. PubMed ID: 9083325
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Quality assessment of observational studies is not commonplace in systematic reviews.
    Mallen C; Peat G; Croft P
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2006 Aug; 59(8):765-9. PubMed ID: 16828667
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Assessment of the methodological quality of systematic reviews published in the urological literature from 1998 to 2008.
    MacDonald SL; Canfield SE; Fesperman SF; Dahm P
    J Urol; 2010 Aug; 184(2):648-53. PubMed ID: 20639030
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature.
    Delaney A; Bagshaw SM; Ferland A; Manns B; Laupland KB; Doig CJ
    Crit Care; 2005 Oct; 9(5):R575-82. PubMed ID: 16277721
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [Clinical decision-making: systematic reviews and meta-analysis].
    Fernández Pérez C
    Neurologia; 2003 Mar; 18(2):70-3. PubMed ID: 12610756
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.