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 *

183 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20831303)

  • 41. A comparison of methods to handle skew distributed cost variables in the analysis of the resource consumption in schizophrenia treatment.
    Kilian R; Matschinger H; Löeffler W; Roick C; Angermeyer MC
    J Ment Health Policy Econ; 2002 Mar; 5(1):21-31. PubMed ID: 12529567
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Prospective observational studies to assess comparative effectiveness: the ISPOR good research practices task force report.
    Berger ML; Dreyer N; Anderson F; Towse A; Sedrakyan A; Normand SL
    Value Health; 2012; 15(2):217-30. PubMed ID: 22433752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Indications for propensity scores and review of their use in pharmacoepidemiology.
    Glynn RJ; Schneeweiss S; Stürmer T
    Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol; 2006 Mar; 98(3):253-9. PubMed ID: 16611199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Potential bias of instrumental variable analyses for observational comparative effectiveness research.
    Garabedian LF; Chu P; Toh S; Zaslavsky AM; Soumerai SB
    Ann Intern Med; 2014 Jul; 161(2):131-8. PubMed ID: 25023252
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Surgery for epilepsy.
    West S; Nolan SJ; Cotton J; Gandhi S; Weston J; Sudan A; Ramirez R; Newton R
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2015 Jul; (7):CD010541. PubMed ID: 26130264
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. The role of observational investigations in comparative effectiveness research.
    Marko NF; Weil RJ
    Value Health; 2010 Dec; 13(8):989-97. PubMed ID: 21138497
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. How has the impact of 'care pathway technologies' on service integration in stroke care been measured and what is the strength of the evidence to support their effectiveness in this respect?
    Allen D; Rixson L
    Int J Evid Based Healthc; 2008 Mar; 6(1):78-110. PubMed ID: 21631815
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Innovative designs of point-of-care comparative effectiveness trials.
    Shih MC; Turakhia M; Lai TL
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2015 Nov; 45(Pt A):61-8. PubMed ID: 26099528
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Some cautions on the use of instrumental variables estimators in outcomes research: how bias in instrumental variables estimators is affected by instrument strength, instrument contamination, and sample size.
    Crown WH; Henk HJ; Vanness DJ
    Value Health; 2011 Dec; 14(8):1078-84. PubMed ID: 22152177
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Some methodological points to consider when performing systematic reviews in comparative effectiveness research.
    Berlin JA; Cepeda MS
    Clin Trials; 2012 Feb; 9(1):27-34. PubMed ID: 22049086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. The effectiveness of internet-based e-learning on clinician behavior and patient outcomes: a systematic review protocol.
    Sinclair P; Kable A; Levett-Jones T
    JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep; 2015 Jan; 13(1):52-64. PubMed ID: 26447007
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Population-Based Observational Studies in Oncology: Proceed With Caution.
    Soni PD; Spratt DE
    Semin Radiat Oncol; 2019 Oct; 29(4):302-305. PubMed ID: 31472729
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. [Statistical tests in medical research: traditional methods vs. multivariate NPC permutation tests].
    Arboretti R; Bordignon P; Corain L; Palermo G; Pesarin F; Salmaso L
    Urologia; 2015; 82(2):130-6. PubMed ID: 25907894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. PAYER PERSPECTIVES ON FUTURE ACCEPTABILITY OF COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS AND RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH.
    Moloney R; Mohr P; Hawe E; Shah K; Garau M; Towse A
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2015 Jan; 31(1-2):90-8. PubMed ID: 26168804
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. The Effectiveness of Integrated Care Pathways for Adults and Children in Health Care Settings: A Systematic Review.
    Allen D; Gillen E; Rixson L
    JBI Libr Syst Rev; 2009; 7(3):80-129. PubMed ID: 27820426
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Generalisability in economic evaluation studies in healthcare: a review and case studies.
    Sculpher MJ; Pang FS; Manca A; Drummond MF; Golder S; Urdahl H; Davies LM; Eastwood A
    Health Technol Assess; 2004 Dec; 8(49):iii-iv, 1-192. PubMed ID: 15544708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Consensus of recommendations guiding comparative effectiveness research methods.
    Morton JB; McConeghy R; Heinrich K; Gatto NM; Caffrey AR
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2016 Dec; 25(12):1354-1360. PubMed ID: 27365094
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Improving participant selection in disease management programmes: insights gained from propensity score stratification.
    Linden A; Adams JL
    J Eval Clin Pract; 2008 Oct; 14(5):914-8. PubMed ID: 19018926
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Applications of propensity score methods in observational comparative effectiveness and safety research: where have we come and where should we go?
    Borah BJ; Moriarty JP; Crown WH; Doshi JA
    J Comp Eff Res; 2014 Jan; 3(1):63-78. PubMed ID: 24266593
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.