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 *

201 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19936437)

  • 1. Bivariate random-effects meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity with SAS PROC GLIMMIX.
    Menke J
    Methods Inf Med; 2010; 49(1):54-62, 62-4. PubMed ID: 19936437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. The Evaluation of Bivariate Mixed Models in Meta-analyses of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies with SAS, Stata and R.
    Vogelgesang F; Schlattmann P; Dewey M
    Methods Inf Med; 2018 May; 57(3):111-119. PubMed ID: 29719917
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Bivariate random effects meta-analysis of ROC curves.
    Arends LR; Hamza TH; van Houwelingen JC; Heijenbrok-Kal MH; Hunink MG; Stijnen T
    Med Decis Making; 2008; 28(5):621-38. PubMed ID: 18591542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Empirical Bayes estimates generated in a hierarchical summary ROC analysis agreed closely with those of a full Bayesian analysis.
    Macaskill P
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2004 Sep; 57(9):925-32. PubMed ID: 15504635
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Bayesian bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity: summary of quantitative findings in 50 meta-analyses.
    Menke J
    J Eval Clin Pract; 2014 Dec; 20(6):844-52. PubMed ID: 24828853
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Statistical methods for multivariate meta-analysis of diagnostic tests: An overview and tutorial.
    Ma X; Nie L; Cole SR; Chu H
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2016 Aug; 25(4):1596-619. PubMed ID: 23804970
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A mixed effect model for bivariate meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies using a copula representation of the random effects distribution.
    Nikoloulopoulos AK
    Stat Med; 2015 Dec; 34(29):3842-65. PubMed ID: 26234584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews.
    Reitsma JB; Glas AS; Rutjes AW; Scholten RJ; Bossuyt PM; Zwinderman AH
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2005 Oct; 58(10):982-90. PubMed ID: 16168343
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. A unification of models for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies without a gold standard.
    Liu Y; Chen Y; Chu H
    Biometrics; 2015 Jun; 71(2):538-47. PubMed ID: 25358907
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Univariate and bivariate likelihood-based meta-analysis methods performed comparably when marginal sensitivity and specificity were the targets of inference.
    Dahabreh IJ; Trikalinos TA; Lau J; Schmid CH
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2017 Mar; 83():8-17. PubMed ID: 28063915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. An empirical comparison of methods for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy showed hierarchical models are necessary.
    Harbord RM; Whiting P; Sterne JA; Egger M; Deeks JJ; Shang A; Bachmann LM
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Nov; 61(11):1095-103. PubMed ID: 19208372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Performance of methods for meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy with few studies or sparse data.
    Takwoingi Y; Guo B; Riley RD; Deeks JJ
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2017 Aug; 26(4):1896-1911. PubMed ID: 26116616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Empirical comparisons of meta-analysis methods for diagnostic studies: a meta-epidemiological study.
    Rosenberger KJ; Chu H; Lin L
    BMJ Open; 2022 May; 12(5):e055336. PubMed ID: 35534072
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Meta-analysis of ROC curves.
    Kester AD; Buntinx F
    Med Decis Making; 2000; 20(4):430-9. PubMed ID: 11059476
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Meta-analysis of full ROC curves using bivariate time-to-event models for interval-censored data.
    Hoyer A; Hirt S; Kuss O
    Res Synth Methods; 2018 Mar; 9(1):62-72. PubMed ID: 29052956
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.