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 *

280 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1834807)

  • 1. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles.
    Oxman AD; Guyatt GH
    J Clin Epidemiol; 1991; 44(11):1271-8. PubMed ID: 1834807
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Agreement among reviewers of review articles.
    Oxman AD; Guyatt GH; Singer J; Goldsmith CH; Hutchison BG; Milner RA; Streiner DL
    J Clin Epidemiol; 1991; 44(1):91-8. PubMed ID: 1824710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. An index of scientific quality for health reports in the lay press.
    Oxman AD; Guyatt GH; Cook DJ; Jaeschke R; Heddle N; Keller J
    J Clin Epidemiol; 1993 Sep; 46(9):987-1001. PubMed ID: 8263584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews in the orthopaedic literature.
    Gagnier JJ; Kellam PJ
    J Bone Joint Surg Am; 2013 Jun; 95(11):e771-7. PubMed ID: 23780547
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Does updating improve the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews?
    Shea B; Boers M; Grimshaw JM; Hamel C; Bouter LM
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2006 Jun; 6():27. PubMed ID: 16772030
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Evaluating meta-analyses in the general surgical literature: a critical appraisal.
    Dixon E; Hameed M; Sutherland F; Cook DJ; Doig C
    Ann Surg; 2005 Mar; 241(3):450-9. PubMed ID: 15729067
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [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]  

  • 9. Quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in Saudi journals from 1997 to 2017.
    Natto ZS; AlGhamdi DS
    Saudi Med J; 2019 May; 40(5):426-431. PubMed ID: 31056617
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. An analysis of review articles published in primary care journals.
    Silagy CA
    Fam Pract; 1993 Sep; 10(3):337-41. PubMed ID: 8282163
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals.
    Jadad AR; Cook DJ; Jones A; Klassen TP; Tugwell P; Moher M; Moher D
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):278-80. PubMed ID: 9676681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. An analysis of review articles published in four anaesthesia journals.
    Smith AF
    Can J Anaesth; 1997 Apr; 44(4):405-9. PubMed ID: 9104524
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The GRACE checklist for rating the quality of observational studies of comparative effectiveness: a tale of hope and caution.
    Dreyer NA; Velentgas P; Westrich K; Dubois R
    J Manag Care Spec Pharm; 2014 Mar; 20(3):301-8. PubMed ID: 24564810
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Methodology and reporting quality of systematic review/meta-analysis of traditional Chinese medicine.
    Junhua Z; Hongcai S; Xiumei G; Boli Z; Yaozu X; Hongbo C; Ming R
    J Altern Complement Med; 2007 Oct; 13(8):797-805. PubMed ID: 17983335
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Quality of scientific articles.
    Szklo M
    Rev Saude Publica; 2006 Aug; 40 Spec no.():30-5. PubMed ID: 16924300
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Compliance of systematic reviews in ophthalmology with the PRISMA statement.
    Lee SY; Sagoo H; Farwana R; Whitehurst K; Fowler A; Agha R
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Dec; 17(1):178. PubMed ID: 29281981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Endorsement of PRISMA statement and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in nursing journals: a cross-sectional study.
    Tam WW; Lo KK; Khalechelvam P
    BMJ Open; 2017 Feb; 7(2):e013905. PubMed ID: 28174224
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals.
    Wicherts JM
    PLoS One; 2016; 11(1):e0147913. PubMed ID: 26824759
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.