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 *

1821 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17302989)

  • 1. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.
    Shea BJ; Grimshaw JM; Wells GA; Boers M; Andersson N; Hamel C; Porter AC; Tugwell P; Moher D; Bouter LM
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2007 Feb; 7():10. PubMed ID: 17302989
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.
    Shea BJ; Hamel C; Wells GA; Bouter LM; Kristjansson E; Grimshaw J; Henry DA; Boers M
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Oct; 62(10):1013-20. PubMed ID: 19230606
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Critical appraisal of AMSTAR: challenges, limitations, and potential solutions from the perspective of an assessor.
    Faggion CM
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2015 Aug; 15():63. PubMed ID: 26268372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. [Assessment of reliability and validity of assessment of multiple systematic reviews in Chinese systematic reviews on stomatology].
    Su N; Lü J; Li C; Chen L; Shi Z
    Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2013 Feb; 31(1):49-52. PubMed ID: 23484302
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of methodological quality rating of systematic reviews on neuropathic pain using AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR.
    Dosenovic S; Jelicic Kadic A; Vucic K; Markovina N; Pieper D; Puljak L
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2018 May; 18(1):37. PubMed ID: 29739339
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. From Systematic Reviews to Clinical Recommendations for Evidence-Based Health Care: Validation of Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) for Grading of Clinical Relevance.
    Kung J; Chiappelli F; Cajulis OO; Avezova R; Kossan G; Chew L; Maida CA
    Open Dent J; 2010 Jul; 4():84-91. PubMed ID: 21088686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews.
    Whiting P; Rutjes AW; Reitsma JB; Bossuyt PM; Kleijnen J
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2003 Nov; 3():25. PubMed ID: 14606960
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Methodological assessment and overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses in Endodontics.
    Nagendrababu V; Faggion CM; Pulikkotil SJ; Alatta A; Dummer PMH
    Int Endod J; 2022 May; 55(5):393-404. PubMed ID: 35080025
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [Methodological quality assessment of systematic reviews correlated to traditional Chinese medicine published in China].
    Hu D; Kang DY; Wu YX
    Zhongguo Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Za Zhi; 2011 Mar; 31(3):402-6. PubMed ID: 21485088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality.
    Pussegoda K; Turner L; Garritty C; Mayhew A; Skidmore B; Stevens A; Boutron I; Sarkis-Onofre R; Bjerre LM; Hróbjartsson A; Altman DG; Moher D
    Syst Rev; 2017 Jul; 6(1):131. PubMed ID: 28720117
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Poor methodological quality and reporting standards of systematic reviews in burn care management.
    Wasiak J; Tyack Z; Ware R; Goodwin N; Faggion CM
    Int Wound J; 2017 Oct; 14(5):754-763. PubMed ID: 27990772
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The risk of bias in systematic reviews tool showed fair reliability and good construct validity.
    Bühn S; Mathes T; Prengel P; Wegewitz U; Ostermann T; Robens S; Pieper D
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2017 Nov; 91():121-128. PubMed ID: 28694122
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Most systematic reviews of high methodological quality on psoriasis interventions are classified as high risk of bias using ROBIS tool.
    Gómez-García F; Ruano J; Gay-Mimbrera J; Aguilar-Luque M; Sanz-Cabanillas JL; Alcalde-Mellado P; Maestre-López B; Carmona-Fernández PJ; González-Padilla M; García-Nieto AV; Isla-Tejera B
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2017 Dec; 92():79-88. PubMed ID: 28893571
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Similarities, reliability and gaps in assessing the quality of conduct of systematic reviews using AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS: systematic survey of nutrition reviews.
    Swierz MJ; Storman D; Zajac J; Koperny M; Weglarz P; Staskiewicz W; Gorecka M; Skuza A; Wach A; Kaluzinska K; Bochenek-Cibor J; Johnston BC; Bala MM
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 Nov; 21(1):261. PubMed ID: 34837960
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review.
    Zeng X; Zhang Y; Kwong JS; Zhang C; Li S; Sun F; Niu Y; Du L
    J Evid Based Med; 2015 Feb; 8(1):2-10. PubMed ID: 25594108
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Systematic reviews explained: AMSTAR-how to tell the good from the bad and the ugly.
    Sharif MO; Janjua-Sharif FN; Ali H; Ahmed F
    Oral Health Dent Manag; 2013 Mar; 12(1):9-16. PubMed ID: 23474576
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Measuring test-retest reliability (TRR) of AMSTAR provides moderate to perfect agreement - a contribution to the discussion of the importance of TRR in relation to the psychometric properties of assessment tools.
    Bühn S; Ober P; Mathes T; Wegewitz U; Jacobs A; Pieper D
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 Mar; 21(1):51. PubMed ID: 33706710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. [Construction of a scale to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews].
    Costa AB; Zoltowski AP; Koller SH; Teixeira MA
    Cien Saude Colet; 2015 Aug; 20(8):2441-52. PubMed ID: 26221809
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Quality assessment versus risk of bias in systematic reviews: AMSTAR and ROBIS had similar reliability but differed in their construct and applicability.
    Banzi R; Cinquini M; Gonzalez-Lorenzo M; Pecoraro V; Capobussi M; Minozzi S
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2018 Jul; 99():24-32. PubMed ID: 29526556
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 92.