116 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18454109)
1. [The statistical analysis in systemic reviews in surgery].
Bazylev VV; Belov IuV
Khirurgiia (Mosk); 2008; (4):48-54. PubMed ID: 18454109
[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. [The practice of systematic reviews. V. Heterogeneity between studies and subgroup analysis].
Scholten RJ; Assendelft WJ; Kostense PJ; Bouter LM
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1999 Apr; 143(16):843-8. PubMed ID: 10347653
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. [Significance of prospective multicenter observational studies for gaining knowledge in surgery].
Gastinger I; Koch A; Marusch F; Schmidt U; Köckerling F; Lippert H
Chirurg; 2002 Feb; 73(2):161-6. PubMed ID: 11974480
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. [Practice of systematic reviews. VII. Pooling of results from observational studies].
Zeegers MP; Heisterkamp SH; Kostense PJ; van der Windt DA; Scholten RJ
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2000 Jul; 144(29):1393-7. PubMed ID: 10923147
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Apparently conclusive meta-analyses may be inconclusive--Trial sequential analysis adjustment of random error risk due to repetitive testing of accumulating data in apparently conclusive neonatal meta-analyses.
Brok J; Thorlund K; Wetterslev J; Gluud C
Int J Epidemiol; 2009 Feb; 38(1):287-98. PubMed ID: 18824466
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. How to read and understand and use systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Leucht S; Kissling W; Davis JM
Acta Psychiatr Scand; 2009 Jun; 119(6):443-50. PubMed ID: 19469725
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Meta-analysis of individual patient data versus aggregate data from longitudinal clinical trials.
Jones AP; Riley RD; Williamson PR; Whitehead A
Clin Trials; 2009 Feb; 6(1):16-27. PubMed ID: 19254930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Attention should be given to multiplicity issues in systematic reviews.
Bender R; Bunce C; Clarke M; Gates S; Lange S; Pace NL; Thorlund K
J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Sep; 61(9):857-65. PubMed ID: 18687287
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Meta-analysis methods.
Trikalinos TA; Salanti G; Zintzaras E; Ioannidis JP
Adv Genet; 2008; 60():311-34. PubMed ID: 18358326
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Frequent mistakes in the statistical inference of biomedical data.
Martínez-Sellés M; Prieto L; Herranz I
Ital Heart J; 2005 Feb; 6(2):90-5. PubMed ID: 15819501
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses "For Dummies".
Biondi-Zoccai GG; Abbate A; Sheiban I
EuroIntervention; 2009 Aug; 5(3):289-91. PubMed ID: 19736151
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Non-Cochrane vs. Cochrane reviews were twice as likely to have positive conclusion statements: cross-sectional study.
Tricco AC; Tetzlaff J; Pham B; Brehaut J; Moher D
J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Apr; 62(4):380-386.e1. PubMed ID: 19128940
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Meta-analysis in surgery: methods and limitations.
Ng TT; McGory ML; Ko CY; Maggard MA
Arch Surg; 2006 Nov; 141(11):1125-30; discussion 1131. PubMed ID: 17116806
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Robustness assessments are needed to reduce bias in meta-analyses that include zero-event randomized trials.
Keus F; Wetterslev J; Gluud C; Gooszen HG; van Laarhoven CJ
Am J Gastroenterol; 2009 Mar; 104(3):546-51. PubMed ID: 19262513
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. We should not pool diagnostic likelihood ratios in systematic reviews.
Zwinderman AH; Bossuyt PM
Stat Med; 2008 Feb; 27(5):687-97. PubMed ID: 17611957
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Evaluating cumulated research. I: The inadequacy of traditional methods.
Carlton PL; Strawderman WE
Biol Psychiatry; 1996 Jan; 39(1):65-72. PubMed ID: 8719128
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. How to read a review paper.
Callcut RA; Branson RD
Respir Care; 2009 Oct; 54(10):1379-85. PubMed ID: 19796419
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Empirical evaluation showed that the Copas selection model provided a useful summary in 80% of meta-analyses.
Carpenter JR; Schwarzer G; Rücker G; Künstler R
J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Jun; 62(6):624-631.e4. PubMed ID: 19282148
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Understanding statistical analysis in the surgical literature: some key concepts.
Young J
ANZ J Surg; 2009 May; 79(5):398-403. PubMed ID: 19566528
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
