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 *

206 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19903336)

  • 21. Bivariate meta-analysis of predictive values of diagnostic tests can be an alternative to bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity.
    Leeflang MM; Deeks JJ; Rutjes AW; Reitsma JB; Bossuyt PM
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2012 Oct; 65(10):1088-97. PubMed ID: 22742916
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Random effects meta-analysis of event outcome in the framework of the generalized linear mixed model with applications in sparse data.
    Stijnen T; Hamza TH; Ozdemir P
    Stat Med; 2010 Dec; 29(29):3046-67. PubMed ID: 20827667
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. A SIMEX approach for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies with attention to ROC curves.
    Guolo A; Pesantez Cabrera TE
    Int J Biostat; 2023 Nov; 19(2):455-471. PubMed ID: 36288630
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Meta-analysis of test accuracy studies using imputation for partial reporting of multiple thresholds.
    Ensor J; Deeks JJ; Martin EC; Riley RD
    Res Synth Methods; 2018 Mar; 9(1):100-115. PubMed ID: 29052347
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Meta-analysis of full ROC curves: Additional flexibility by using semiparametric distributions of diagnostic test values.
    Hoyer A; Kuss O
    Res Synth Methods; 2019 Dec; 10(4):528-538. PubMed ID: 31231986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Multivariate random-effects approach: for meta-analysis of cancer staging studies.
    Bipat S; Zwinderman AH; Bossuyt PM; Stoker J
    Acad Radiol; 2007 Aug; 14(8):974-84. PubMed ID: 17659244
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Mixture models in diagnostic meta-analyses--clustering summary receiver operating characteristic curves accounted for heterogeneity and correlation.
    Schlattmann P; Verba M; Dewey M; Walther M
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 Jan; 68(1):61-72. PubMed ID: 25441701
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. A pseudo-likelihood approach for multivariate meta-analysis of test accuracy studies with multiple thresholds.
    Guolo A; To DK
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2021 Jan; 30(1):204-220. PubMed ID: 32787534
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Proportional odds ratio model for comparison of diagnostic tests in meta-analysis.
    Siadaty MS; Shu J
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2004 Dec; 4(1):27. PubMed ID: 15588327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Bivariate random-effects meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity with the Bayesian SAS PROC MCMC: methodology and empirical evaluation in 50 meta-analyses.
    Menke J
    Med Decis Making; 2013 Jul; 33(5):692-701. PubMed ID: 23475941
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. An alternative model for bivariate random-effects meta-analysis when the within-study correlations are unknown.
    Riley RD; Thompson JR; Abrams KR
    Biostatistics; 2008 Jan; 9(1):172-86. PubMed ID: 17626226
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. An improved method for bivariate meta-analysis when within-study correlations are unknown.
    Hong C; D Riley R; Chen Y
    Res Synth Methods; 2018 Mar; 9(1):73-88. PubMed ID: 29055096
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Meta-DiSc 2.0: a web application for meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy data.
    Plana MN; Arevalo-Rodriguez I; Fernández-García S; Soto J; Fabregate M; Pérez T; Roqué M; Zamora J
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2022 Nov; 22(1):306. PubMed ID: 36443653
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. The binomial distribution of meta-analysis was preferred to model within-study variability.
    Hamza TH; van Houwelingen HC; Stijnen T
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Jan; 61(1):41-51. PubMed ID: 18083461
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Meta-analysis of diagnostic tests accounting for disease prevalence: a new model using trivariate copulas.
    Hoyer A; Kuss O
    Stat Med; 2015 May; 34(11):1912-24. PubMed ID: 25712874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. The predictive receiver operating characteristic curve for the joint assessment of the positive and negative predictive values.
    Shiu SY; Gatsonis C
    Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci; 2008 Jul; 366(1874):2313-33. PubMed ID: 18407893
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Meta-analysis of diagnostic and screening test accuracy evaluations: methodologic primer.
    Gatsonis C; Paliwal P
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2006 Aug; 187(2):271-81. PubMed ID: 16861527
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Meta-analysis of test accuracy studies: an exploratory method for investigating the impact of missing thresholds.
    Riley RD; Ahmed I; Ensor J; Takwoingi Y; Kirkham A; Morris RK; Noordzij JP; Deeks JJ
    Syst Rev; 2015; 4():12. PubMed ID: 25652323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Tutorial: statistical methods for the meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies.
    Schlattmann P
    Clin Chem Lab Med; 2023 Apr; 61(5):777-794. PubMed ID: 36656998
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Fully non-parametric receiver operating characteristic curve estimation for random-effects meta-analysis.
    Martínez-Camblor P
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2017 Feb; 26(1):5-20. PubMed ID: 24872352
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.