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 *

239 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19744052)

  • 41. Critical appraisal. 8. Appraising qualitative research.
    Thompson C
    NT Learn Curve; 1999 Nov; 3(9):7-9. PubMed ID: 10827680
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Rigour and validity of research findings - a tale of two controversies.
    Robinson P
    Aust N Z J Public Health; 2010 Jun; 34(3):223-5. PubMed ID: 20618258
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. A psychometric toolbox for testing validity and reliability.
    DeVon HA; Block ME; Moyle-Wright P; Ernst DM; Hayden SJ; Lazzara DJ; Savoy SM; Kostas-Polston E
    J Nurs Scholarsh; 2007; 39(2):155-64. PubMed ID: 17535316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Passive smoking and replication.
    Ebers G
    Eur J Neurol; 2008 Dec; 15(12):1263-4. PubMed ID: 19049541
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Flaws in critical appraisal.
    Raymond E; Adcock L; Boland MF; MacDonald I; Ogilvie G; Stephenson M
    Can Fam Physician; 1998 Mar; 44():485, 487. PubMed ID: 9559184
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Forum for Applied Cancer Education and Training. Critical appraisal.
    Eur J Cancer Care (Engl); 1999 Mar; 8(1):51-5. PubMed ID: 10362955
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. An analysis of systematic reviews undertaken on standard advanced wound dressings in the last 10 years.
    Horkan L; Stansfield G; Miller M
    J Wound Care; 2009 Jul; 18(7):298-304. PubMed ID: 19827483
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Reporting statistical results.
    Wootton RJ; Craig JF;
    J Fish Biol; 2011 Mar; 78(3):697-9. PubMed ID: 21366566
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Systematic mixed-methods reviews are not ready to be assessed with the available tools.
    Bouchard K; Dubuisson W; Simard J; Dorval M
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2011 Aug; 64(8):926-8. PubMed ID: 21474281
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Statistical significance, power and sample size - what does it all mean?
    Christley RM
    J Small Anim Pract; 2008 Jun; 49(6):263. PubMed ID: 18510495
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. AACN levels of evidence: what's new?
    Armola RR; Bourgault AM; Halm MA; Board RM; Bucher L; Harrington L; Heafey CA; Lee R; Shellner PK; Medina J
    Crit Care Nurse; 2009 Aug; 29(4):70-3. PubMed ID: 19648600
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Comparison of the effects of using the Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool versus informal appraisal in assessing health research: a randomised trial.
    Crowe M; Sheppard L; Campbell A
    Int J Evid Based Healthc; 2011 Dec; 9(4):444-9. PubMed ID: 22093394
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Improving the Reproducibility and Quality of Reporting for Animal Studies in Inflammatory Bowel Disease.
    Arseneau KKO; Cominelli F
    Inflamm Bowel Dis; 2017 Dec; 23(12):2069-2071. PubMed ID: 29135693
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. The precision of reliability and validity estimates re-visited: distinguishing between clinical and statistical significance of sample size requirements.
    Cicchetti DV
    J Clin Exp Neuropsychol; 2001 Oct; 23(5):695-700. PubMed ID: 11778646
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. How to critique qualitative research articles.
    Forchuk C; Roberts J
    Can J Nurs Res; 1993; 25(4):47-55; quiz 56. PubMed ID: 10603806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Appraising qualitative research articles in medicine and medical education.
    Côté L; Turgeon J
    Med Teach; 2005 Jan; 27(1):71-5. PubMed ID: 16147774
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Between-case standardized effect size analysis of single case designs: Examination of the two methods.
    Odom SL; Barton EE; Reichow B; Swaminathan H; Pustejovsky JE
    Res Dev Disabil; 2018 Aug; 79():88-96. PubMed ID: 29807692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Reporting quality in evidence-based studies.
    Yoon U; Knobloch K
    J Am Coll Surg; 2010 Apr; 210(4):533. PubMed ID: 20347748
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Improving the quality of reporting in randomised controlled trials.
    Walker A; Nixon J
    J Wound Care; 2004 Mar; 13(3):103-6. PubMed ID: 15045804
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Scientific and statistical reviews of manuscripts submitted to Nursing Research: Comparison of completeness, quality, and usefulness.
    Henly SJ; Bennett JA; Dougherty MC
    Nurs Outlook; 2010; 58(4):188-99. PubMed ID: 20637932
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.