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 *

122 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20064254)

  • 21. Xpert
    Kohli M; Schiller I; Dendukuri N; Dheda K; Denkinger CM; Schumacher SG; Steingart KR
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2018 Aug; 8(8):CD012768. PubMed ID: 30148542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. On sample size for sensitivity and specificity in prospective diagnostic accuracy studies.
    Li J; Fine J
    Stat Med; 2004 Aug; 23(16):2537-50. PubMed ID: 15287083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Screening for disease: making evidence-based choices.
    Fields MM; Chevlen E
    Clin J Oncol Nurs; 2006 Feb; 10(1):73-6. PubMed ID: 16482730
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Polymerase chain reaction blood tests for the diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis in immunocompromised people.
    Cruciani M; Mengoli C; Loeffler J; Donnelly P; Barnes R; Jones BL; Klingspor L; Morton O; Maertens J
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2015 Oct; (10):CD009551. PubMed ID: 26424726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Polymerase chain reaction blood tests for the diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis in immunocompromised people.
    Cruciani M; Mengoli C; Loeffler J; Donnelly P; Barnes R; Jones BL; Klingspor L; Morton O; Maertens J
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2015 Sep; (9):CD009551. PubMed ID: 26343815
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Thoracic imaging tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19.
    Salameh JP; Leeflang MM; Hooft L; Islam N; McGrath TA; van der Pol CB; Frank RA; Prager R; Hare SS; Dennie C; Spijker R; Deeks JJ; Dinnes J; Jenniskens K; Korevaar DA; Cohen JF; Van den Bruel A; Takwoingi Y; van de Wijgert J; Damen JA; Wang J; ; McInnes MD
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2020 Sep; 9():CD013639. PubMed ID: 32997361
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Verification and classification bias interactions in diagnostic test accuracy studies for fine-needle aspiration biopsy.
    Schmidt RL; Walker BS; Cohen MB
    Cancer Cytopathol; 2015 Mar; 123(3):193-201. PubMed ID: 25521425
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Selective Cutoff Reporting in Studies of Diagnostic Test Accuracy: A Comparison of Conventional and Individual-Patient-Data Meta-Analyses of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 Depression Screening Tool.
    Levis B; Benedetti A; Levis AW; Ioannidis JPA; Shrier I; Cuijpers P; Gilbody S; Kloda LA; McMillan D; Patten SB; Steele RJ; Ziegelstein RC; Bombardier CH; de Lima Osório F; Fann JR; Gjerdingen D; Lamers F; Lotrakul M; Loureiro SR; Löwe B; Shaaban J; Stafford L; van Weert HCPM; Whooley MA; Williams LS; Wittkampf KA; Yeung AS; Thombs BD
    Am J Epidemiol; 2017 May; 185(10):954-964. PubMed ID: 28419203
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Bias due to composite reference standards in diagnostic accuracy studies.
    Schiller I; van Smeden M; Hadgu A; Libman M; Reitsma JB; Dendukuri N
    Stat Med; 2016 Apr; 35(9):1454-70. PubMed ID: 26555849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. A global sensitivity analysis of performance of a medical diagnostic test when verification bias is present.
    Kosinski AS; Barnhart HX
    Stat Med; 2003 Sep; 22(17):2711-21. PubMed ID: 12939781
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Bias correction methods for test-negative designs in the presence of misclassification.
    Endo A; Funk S; Kucharski AJ
    Epidemiol Infect; 2020 Sep; 148():e216. PubMed ID: 32895088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Correcting for verification bias in studies of a diagnostic test's accuracy.
    Zhou XH
    Stat Methods Med Res; 1998 Dec; 7(4):337-53. PubMed ID: 9871951
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Critically appraising studies reporting assessing diagnostic tests.
    O'Connor A; Evans RB
    Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract; 2007 May; 37(3):487-97. PubMed ID: 17466752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Evaluation of diagnostic tests without gold standards.
    Hui SL; Zhou XH
    Stat Methods Med Res; 1998 Dec; 7(4):354-70. PubMed ID: 9871952
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. A systematic review of comparisons of effect sizes derived from randomised and non-randomised studies.
    MacLehose RR; Reeves BC; Harvey IM; Sheldon TA; Russell IT; Black AM
    Health Technol Assess; 2000; 4(34):1-154. PubMed ID: 11134917
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Effect of dependent errors in the assessment of diagnostic or screening test accuracy when the reference standard is imperfect.
    Walter SD; Macaskill P; Lord SJ; Irwig L
    Stat Med; 2012 May; 31(11-12):1129-38. PubMed ID: 22351623
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. [Implication of inverse-probability weighting method in the evaluation of diagnostic test with verification bias].
    Kang L; Zhang S; Zhao F; Qiao Y
    Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi; 2014 Mar; 35(3):329-32. PubMed ID: 24831638
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Non-contact tests for identifying people at risk of primary angle closure glaucoma.
    Jindal A; Ctori I; Virgili G; Lucenteforte E; Lawrenson JG
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2020 May; 5(5):CD012947. PubMed ID: 32468576
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.