244 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18715482)
21. Fixed- versus random-effects models in meta-analysis: model properties and an empirical comparison of differences in results.
Schmidt FL; Oh IS; Hayes TL
Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2009 Feb; 62(Pt 1):97-128. PubMed ID: 18001516
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Meta-analysis under the spotlight: focused on a meta-analysis of ventilator weaning.
Tobin MJ; Jubran A
Crit Care Med; 2008 Jan; 36(1):1-7. PubMed ID: 18007269
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Meta-analytical issues for prevention intervention research.
Tobler N
NIDA Res Monogr; 1994; 142():342-403. PubMed ID: 9243541
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. 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]
25. 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]
26. 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]
27. The file-drawer problem revisited: a general weighted method for calculating fail-safe numbers in meta-analysis.
Rosenberg MS
Evolution; 2005 Feb; 59(2):464-8. PubMed ID: 15807430
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Estimating the proportion of studies missing for meta-analysis due to publication bias.
Formann AK
Contemp Clin Trials; 2008 Sep; 29(5):732-9. PubMed ID: 18586577
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Extreme between-study homogeneity in meta-analyses could offer useful insights.
Ioannidis JP; Trikalinos TA; Zintzaras E
J Clin Epidemiol; 2006 Oct; 59(10):1023-32. PubMed ID: 16980141
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. [Quasi experimental evaluation of public health interventions (author's transl)].
Patrick DL
Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique; 1981; 29(3):245-53. PubMed ID: 7302309
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. 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]
32. The research evidence published in high impact nursing journals between 2000 and 2006: a quantitative content analysis.
Mantzoukas S
Int J Nurs Stud; 2009 Apr; 46(4):479-89. PubMed ID: 19187934
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Systematic reviews of workplace injury interventions: what are we missing?
Lipscomb HJ; Pompeii LA; Myers DJ; Schoenfisch AL; Dement JM
Med Lav; 2009; 100(4):247-57. PubMed ID: 19764180
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Assessing the reporting and scientific quality of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials of treatments for anxiety disorders.
Bereza BG; Machado M; Einarson TR
Ann Pharmacother; 2008 Oct; 42(10):1402-9. PubMed ID: 18728102
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Selective reporting of adjusted estimates in observational epidemiology studies: reasons and implications for meta-analyses.
Peters J; Mengersen K
Eval Health Prof; 2008 Dec; 31(4):370-89. PubMed ID: 19000980
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. 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]
37. An exploratory test for an excess of significant findings.
Ioannidis JP; Trikalinos TA
Clin Trials; 2007; 4(3):245-53. PubMed ID: 17715249
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. In pursuit of cumulative knowledge in health communication: the role of meta-analysis.
Noar SM
Health Commun; 2006; 20(2):169-75. PubMed ID: 16965254
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. The regression effect as a neglected source of bias in nonrandomized intervention trials and systematic reviews of observational studies.
Weeks DL
Eval Health Prof; 2007 Sep; 30(3):254-65. PubMed ID: 17693618
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Synthesis of observational studies should consider credibility ceilings.
Salanti G; Ioannidis JP
J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Feb; 62(2):115-22. PubMed ID: 19131013
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
