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 *

778 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17974687)

  • 41. Evaluation of underlying risk as a source of heterogeneity in meta-analyses: a simulation study of Bayesian and frequentist implementations of three models.
    Dohoo I; Stryhn H; Sanchez J
    Prev Vet Med; 2007 Sep; 81(1-3):38-55. PubMed ID: 17477995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Predictive distributions for between-study heterogeneity and simple methods for their application in Bayesian meta-analysis.
    Turner RM; Jackson D; Wei Y; Thompson SG; Higgins JP
    Stat Med; 2015 Mar; 34(6):984-98. PubMed ID: 25475839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Label-invariant models for the analysis of meta-epidemiological data.
    Rhodes KM; Mawdsley D; Turner RM; Jones HE; Savović J; Higgins JPT
    Stat Med; 2018 Jan; 37(1):60-70. PubMed ID: 28929507
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Comment on: Heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be expected and appropriately quantified.
    Coory MD
    Int J Epidemiol; 2010 Jun; 39(3):932; author reply 933. PubMed ID: 19349478
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. HELOW: a program for testing extreme homogeneity in meta-analysis.
    Zintzaras E; Ioannidis JP
    Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2014 Nov; 117(2):383-6. PubMed ID: 25023534
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Issues in the meta-analysis of cluster randomized trials.
    Donner A; Klar N
    Stat Med; 2002 Oct; 21(19):2971-80. PubMed ID: 12325113
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. [Systematic reviews and meta-analyses].
    Steichen O
    Rev Med Interne; 2014 Aug; 35(8):558. PubMed ID: 24946953
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Imputing variance estimates do not alter the conclusions of a meta-analysis with continuous outcomes: a case study of changes in renal function after living kidney donation.
    Thiessen Philbrook H; Barrowman N; Garg AX
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2007 Mar; 60(3):228-40. PubMed ID: 17292016
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. An overview of methods and empirical comparison of aggregate data and individual patient data results for investigating heterogeneity in meta-analysis of time-to-event outcomes.
    Smith CT; Williamson PR; Marson AG
    J Eval Clin Pract; 2005 Oct; 11(5):468-78. PubMed ID: 16164588
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Prediction intervals for random-effects meta-analysis: A confidence distribution approach.
    Nagashima K; Noma H; Furukawa TA
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2019 Jun; 28(6):1689-1702. PubMed ID: 29745296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. A note on the empirical Bayes heterogeneity variance estimator in meta-analysis.
    Sidik K; Jonkman JN
    Stat Med; 2019 Sep; 38(20):3804-3816. PubMed ID: 31209917
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Accounting for heterogeneity in meta-analysis using a multiplicative model-an empirical study.
    Mawdsley D; Higgins JP; Sutton AJ; Abrams KR
    Res Synth Methods; 2017 Mar; 8(1):43-52. PubMed ID: 27259973
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Nonindependence and sensitivity analyses in ecological and evolutionary meta-analyses.
    Noble DWA; Lagisz M; O'dea RE; Nakagawa S
    Mol Ecol; 2017 May; 26(9):2410-2425. PubMed ID: 28133832
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Exploring heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Subgroup analysis. Part 1.
    Spineli LM; Pandis N
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2020 Aug; 158(2):302-304.e1. PubMed ID: 32620480
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in simulated random-effects meta-analyses.
    Langan D; Higgins JPT; Jackson D; Bowden J; Veroniki AA; Kontopantelis E; Viechtbauer W; Simmonds M
    Res Synth Methods; 2019 Mar; 10(1):83-98. PubMed ID: 30067315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. The appropriateness of asymmetry tests for publication bias in meta-analyses: a large survey.
    Ioannidis JP; Trikalinos TA
    CMAJ; 2007 Apr; 176(8):1091-6. PubMed ID: 17420491
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Methods for exploring heterogeneity in meta-analysis.
    Song F; Sheldon TA; Sutton AJ; Abrams KR; Jones DR
    Eval Health Prof; 2001 Jun; 24(2):126-51. PubMed ID: 11523383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Choice of effect measure for meta-analyses of dichotomous outcomes influenced the identified heterogeneity and direction of small-study effects.
    Papageorgiou SN; Tsiranidou E; Antonoglou GN; Deschner J; Jäger A
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 May; 68(5):534-41. PubMed ID: 25666885
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 index?
    Huedo-Medina TB; Sánchez-Meca J; Marín-Martínez F; Botella J
    Psychol Methods; 2006 Jun; 11(2):193-206. PubMed ID: 16784338
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Diagnostic statistical procedures in medical meta-analyses.
    Olkin I
    Stat Med; 1999 Sep 15-30; 18(17-18):2331-41. PubMed ID: 10474143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 39.