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 *

174 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18783919)

  • 1. An encouraging assessment of methods to inform priorities for updating systematic reviews.
    Sutton AJ; Donegan S; Takwoingi Y; Garner P; Gamble C; Donald A
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Mar; 62(3):241-51. PubMed ID: 18783919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Surveillance search techniques identified the need to update systematic reviews.
    Sampson M; Shojania KG; McGowan J; Daniel R; Rader T; Iansavichene AE; Ji J; Ansari MT; Moher D
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Aug; 61(8):755-62. PubMed ID: 18586179
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Investing in updating: how do conclusions change when Cochrane systematic reviews are updated?
    French SD; McDonald S; McKenzie JE; Green SE
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2005 Oct; 5():33. PubMed ID: 16225692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Cochrane reviews used more rigorous methods than non-Cochrane reviews: survey of systematic reviews in physiotherapy.
    Moseley AM; Elkins MR; Herbert RD; Maher CG; Sherrington C
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Oct; 62(10):1021-30. PubMed ID: 19282144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Systematic reviews for evidence-based management: how to find them and what to do with them.
    Chan KS; Morton SC; Shekelle PG
    Am J Manag Care; 2004 Nov; 10(11 Pt 1):806-12. PubMed ID: 15623270
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: an illustrated, step-by-step guide.
    Pai M; McCulloch M; Gorman JD; Pai N; Enanoria W; Kennedy G; Tharyan P; Colford JM
    Natl Med J India; 2004; 17(2):86-95. PubMed ID: 15141602
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Systematic reviews can be produced and published faster.
    Sampson M; Shojania KG; Garritty C; Horsley T; Ocampo M; Moher D
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Jun; 61(6):531-6. PubMed ID: 18471656
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Reporting of adverse events in systematic reviews can be improved: survey results.
    Hopewell S; Wolfenden L; Clarke M
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Jun; 61(6):597-602. PubMed ID: 18411039
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. No consensus exists on search reporting methods for systematic reviews.
    Sampson M; McGowan J; Tetzlaff J; Cogo E; Moher D
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Aug; 61(8):748-54. PubMed ID: 18586178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [Systematic reviews of studies of diagnostic test accuracy].
    Moreno G G; Pantoja C T
    Rev Med Chil; 2009 Feb; 137(2):303-7. PubMed ID: 19543656
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Deconstructing evidence in orthodontics: making sense of systematic reviews, randomized clinical trials, and meta-analyses.
    Rinchuse DJ; Rinchuse DJ; Kandasamy S; Ackerman MB
    World J Orthod; 2008; 9(2):167-76. PubMed ID: 18575311
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. How to use a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.
    Tseng TY; Dahm P; Poolman RW; Preminger GM; Canales BJ; Montori VM
    J Urol; 2008 Oct; 180(4):1249-56. PubMed ID: 18707741
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. McMaster Premium LiteratUre Service (PLUS) performed well for identifying new studies for updated Cochrane reviews.
    Hemens BJ; Haynes RB
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2012 Jan; 65(1):62-72.e1. PubMed ID: 21856121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study.
    Egger M; Juni P; Bartlett C; Holenstein F; Sterne J
    Health Technol Assess; 2003; 7(1):1-76. PubMed ID: 12583822
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The role of systematic reviews in clinical research and practice.
    Haines T; McKnight L; Duku E; Perry L; Thoma A
    Clin Plast Surg; 2008 Apr; 35(2):207-14. PubMed ID: 18298993
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Uncertainty method improved on best-worst case analysis in a binary meta-analysis.
    Gamble C; Hollis S
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2005 Jun; 58(6):579-88. PubMed ID: 15878471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.