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 *

309 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18559412)

  • 1. Imputation methods for missing outcome data in meta-analysis of clinical trials.
    Higgins JP; White IR; Wood AM
    Clin Trials; 2008; 5(3):225-39. PubMed ID: 18559412
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A Bayesian framework to account for uncertainty due to missing binary outcome data in pairwise meta-analysis.
    Turner NL; Dias S; Ades AE; Welton NJ
    Stat Med; 2015 May; 34(12):2062-80. PubMed ID: 25809313
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Evaluating the impact of imputations for missing participant outcome data in a network meta-analysis.
    Spineli LM; Higgins JP; Cipriani A; Leucht S; Salanti G
    Clin Trials; 2013; 10(3):378-88. PubMed ID: 23321265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Dealing with missing outcome data in meta-analysis.
    Mavridis D; White IR
    Res Synth Methods; 2020 Jan; 11(1):2-13. PubMed ID: 30991455
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Accounting for uncertainty due to 'last observation carried forward' outcome imputation in a meta-analysis model.
    Dimitrakopoulou V; Efthimiou O; Leucht S; Salanti G
    Stat Med; 2015 Feb; 34(5):742-52. PubMed ID: 25492741
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Allowing for uncertainty due to missing data in meta-analysis--part 1: two-stage methods.
    White IR; Higgins JP; Wood AM
    Stat Med; 2008 Feb; 27(5):711-27. PubMed ID: 17703496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Allowing for uncertainty due to missing data in meta-analysis--part 2: hierarchical models.
    White IR; Welton NJ; Wood AM; Ades AE; Higgins JP
    Stat Med; 2008 Feb; 27(5):728-45. PubMed ID: 17703502
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Allowing for uncertainty due to missing continuous outcome data in pairwise and network meta-analysis.
    Mavridis D; White IR; Higgins JP; Cipriani A; Salanti G
    Stat Med; 2015 Feb; 34(5):721-41. PubMed ID: 25393541
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparison of exclusion, imputation and modelling of missing binary outcome data in frequentist network meta-analysis.
    Spineli LM; Kalyvas C
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2020 Feb; 20(1):48. PubMed ID: 32111167
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A four-step strategy for handling missing outcome data in randomised trials affected by a pandemic.
    Cro S; Morris TP; Kahan BC; Cornelius VR; Carpenter JR
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2020 Aug; 20(1):208. PubMed ID: 32787782
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. An empirical comparison of Bayesian modelling strategies for missing binary outcome data in network meta-analysis.
    Spineli LM
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Apr; 19(1):86. PubMed ID: 31018836
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Addressing missing outcome data in meta-analysis.
    Mavridis D; Chaimani A; Efthimiou O; Leucht S; Salanti G
    Evid Based Ment Health; 2014 Aug; 17(3):85-9. PubMed ID: 25009175
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Development of a practical approach to expert elicitation for randomised controlled trials with missing health outcomes: Application to the IMPROVE trial.
    Mason AJ; Gomes M; Grieve R; Ulug P; Powell JT; Carpenter J
    Clin Trials; 2017 Aug; 14(4):357-367. PubMed ID: 28675302
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Potential impact of missing outcome data on treatment effects in systematic reviews: imputation study.
    Kahale LA; Khamis AM; Diab B; Chang Y; Lopes LC; Agarwal A; Li L; Mustafa RA; Koujanian S; Waziry R; Busse JW; Dakik A; Schünemann HJ; Hooft L; Scholten RJ; Guyatt GH; Akl EA
    BMJ; 2020 Aug; 370():m2898. PubMed ID: 32847800
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Allowing for uncertainty due to missing and LOCF imputed outcomes in meta-analysis.
    Mavridis D; Salanti G; Furukawa TA; Cipriani A; Chaimani A; White IR
    Stat Med; 2019 Feb; 38(5):720-737. PubMed ID: 30347460
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Handling trial participants with missing outcome data when conducting a meta-analysis: a systematic survey of proposed approaches.
    Akl EA; Kahale LA; Agoritsas T; Brignardello-Petersen R; Busse JW; Carrasco-Labra A; Ebrahim S; Johnston BC; Neumann I; Sola I; Sun X; Vandvik P; Zhang Y; Alonso-Coello P; Guyatt G
    Syst Rev; 2015 Jul; 4():98. PubMed ID: 26202162
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Dealing with missing standard deviation and mean values in meta-analysis of continuous outcomes: a systematic review.
    Weir CJ; Butcher I; Assi V; Lewis SC; Murray GD; Langhorne P; Brady MC
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2018 Mar; 18(1):25. PubMed ID: 29514597
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Is using multiple imputation better than complete case analysis for estimating a prevalence (risk) difference in randomized controlled trials when binary outcome observations are missing?
    Mukaka M; White SA; Terlouw DJ; Mwapasa V; Kalilani-Phiri L; Faragher EB
    Trials; 2016 Jul; 17():341. PubMed ID: 27450066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Imputation strategies for missing binary outcomes in cluster randomized trials.
    Ma J; Akhtar-Danesh N; Dolovich L; Thabane L;
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2011 Feb; 11():18. PubMed ID: 21324148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Properties and pitfalls of weighting as an alternative to multilevel multiple imputation in cluster randomized trials with missing binary outcomes under covariate-dependent missingness.
    Turner EL; Yao L; Li F; Prague M
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2020 May; 29(5):1338-1353. PubMed ID: 31293199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 16.