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 *

132 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17632218)

  • 41. STAR*D: the results begin to roll in.
    Menza M
    Am J Psychiatry; 2006 Jul; 163(7):1123. PubMed ID: 16816210
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Unsound interpretation of findings on a measurement bias in antidepressant drug research.
    Baumeister H
    Acta Psychiatr Scand; 2012 Jun; 125(6):502; author reply 502-3. PubMed ID: 22356608
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. A Method to Estimate the Efficacy vs. Effectiveness in Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials with Different Adherence Scenarios: A Monte Carlo Simulation Study in Nutrition.
    López-Espinoza MÁ; Lozano-Lozano JA; Prieto-Merino D
    Nutrients; 2021 Jul; 13(7):. PubMed ID: 34371861
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. The art of quality assessment of RCTs included in systematic reviews.
    Verhagen AP; de Vet HC; de Bie RA; Boers M; van den Brandt PA
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2001 Jul; 54(7):651-4. PubMed ID: 11438404
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Assessment of blinding in randomized controlled trials of antidepressants for depressive disorders 2000-2020: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Lin YH; Sahker E; Shinohara K; Horinouchi N; Ito M; Lelliott M; Cipriani A; Tomlinson A; Baethge C; Furukawa TA
    EClinicalMedicine; 2022 Aug; 50():101505. PubMed ID: 35812993
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Forty years of antidepressant drug trials.
    Barbui C; Hotopf M
    Acta Psychiatr Scand; 2001 Aug; 104(2):92-5. PubMed ID: 11473501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. An empirical study of the possible relation of treatment differences to quality scores in controlled randomized clinical trials.
    Emerson JD; Burdick E; Hoaglin DC; Mosteller F; Chalmers TC
    Control Clin Trials; 1990 Oct; 11(5):339-52. PubMed ID: 1963128
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. An old but still burning problem: Inter-rater reliability in clinical trials with antidepressant medication.
    Berendsen S; Verdegaal LMA; van Tricht MJ; Blankers M; Van HL; de Haan L
    J Affect Disord; 2020 Nov; 276():748-751. PubMed ID: 32736184
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Scales to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials: a systematic review.
    Olivo SA; Macedo LG; Gadotti IC; Fuentes J; Stanton T; Magee DJ
    Phys Ther; 2008 Feb; 88(2):156-75. PubMed ID: 18073267
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?
    Jadad AR; Moore RA; Carroll D; Jenkinson C; Reynolds DJ; Gavaghan DJ; McQuay HJ
    Control Clin Trials; 1996 Feb; 17(1):1-12. PubMed ID: 8721797
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Standardization for subgroup analysis in randomized controlled trials.
    Varadhan R; Wang SJ
    J Biopharm Stat; 2014; 24(1):154-67. PubMed ID: 24392983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Generalizing from clinical trial data: a case study. The risk of suicidality among pediatric antidepressant users.
    Greenhouse JB; Kaizar EE; Kelleher K; Seltman H; Gardner W
    Stat Med; 2008 May; 27(11):1801-13. PubMed ID: 18381709
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials. Current issues and future directions.
    Moher D; Jadad AR; Tugwell P
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 1996; 12(2):195-208. PubMed ID: 8707495
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. An empirical study using permutation-based resampling in meta-regression.
    Gagnier JJ; Moher D; Boon H; Bombardier C; Beyene J
    Syst Rev; 2012 Feb; 1():18. PubMed ID: 22587815
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Development of a tool to rate the quality assessment of randomized controlled trials using a Delphi technique.
    Sindhu F; Carpenter L; Seers K
    J Adv Nurs; 1997 Jun; 25(6):1262-8. PubMed ID: 9181425
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Meta-analysis in the assessment of treatment outcome.
    Geddes J
    J Psychopharmacol; 2006 Jul; 20(4 Suppl):67-71. PubMed ID: 16785273
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. A systematic review of the quality and impact of anxiety disorder meta-analyses.
    Ipser JC; Stein DJ
    Curr Psychiatry Rep; 2009 Aug; 11(4):302-9. PubMed ID: 19635239
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Meta-analysis of noninferiority and equivalence trials: ignoring trial design leads to differing and possibly misleading conclusions.
    Acuna SA; Dossa F; Baxter N
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2020 Nov; 127():134-141. PubMed ID: 32540386
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Development of the Instrument to assess the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN) in randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses.
    Schandelmaier S; Briel M; Varadhan R; Schmid CH; Devasenapathy N; Hayward RA; Gagnier J; Borenstein M; van der Heijden GJMG; Dahabreh IJ; Sun X; Sauerbrei W; Walsh M; Ioannidis JPA; Thabane L; Guyatt GH
    CMAJ; 2020 Aug; 192(32):E901-E906. PubMed ID: 32778601
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Systematic review and statistical analysis of the integrity of 33 randomized controlled trials.
    Bolland MJ; Avenell A; Gamble GD; Grey A
    Neurology; 2016 Dec; 87(23):2391-2402. PubMed ID: 27920281
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.