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 *

115 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21104939)

  • 1. Comments on 'Empirical vs natural weighting in random effects meta-analysis' by JJ Shuster, Statistics in Medicine 2009; 26, Published online, DOI: 10.1002/sim.3607.
    Rücker G; Schwarzer G; Carpenter J; Schumacher M
    Stat Med; 2010 Dec; 29(28):2963-5; author reply 2965-6. PubMed ID: 21104939
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comments on 'Empirical vs natural weighting in random effects meta-analysis'.
    Laird N; Fitzmaurice G; Ding X
    Stat Med; 2010 May; 29(12):1266-7; discussion 1272-81. PubMed ID: 20499329
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comments on 'Empirical vs natural weighting in random effects meta-analysis'.
    Waksman JA
    Stat Med; 2010 May; 29(12):1268-9; discussion 1272-81. PubMed ID: 20499330
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comments on 'Empirical vs natural weighting in random effects meta-analysis'.
    Thompson SG; Higgins JP
    Stat Med; 2010 May; 29(12):1270-1; discussion 1272-81. PubMed ID: 20499331
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comments on 'Sequential methods for random-effects meta-analysis' by J. P. Higgins, A. Whitehead and M. Simmonds, Statistics in Medicine 2010; DOI: 10.1002/sim.4088.
    Imberger G; Gluud C; Wetterslev J
    Stat Med; 2011 Oct; 30(24):2965-6. PubMed ID: 21969254
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Empirical versus natural weighting in random effects meta-analysis by J. J. Shuster, Statistics in Medicine 2010; 29(12):1259-65.
    Doi SA
    Stat Med; 2014 Mar; 33(7):1259. PubMed ID: 24590730
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comments on 'Performance of using multiple stepwise algorithms for variable selection' by Ryan E. Wiegand, Statistics in Medicine 2010; 29:1647-1659.
    Sauerbrei W; Royston P; Schumacher M
    Stat Med; 2011 Apr; 30(8):892-4; author reply 894-5. PubMed ID: 21432884
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Fixed- versus random-effects models in meta-analysis: model properties and an empirical comparison of differences in results.
    Schmidt FL; Oh IS; Hayes TL
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2009 Feb; 62(Pt 1):97-128. PubMed ID: 18001516
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Hans van Houwelingen and the art of summing up.
    Senn S
    Biom J; 2010 Feb; 52(1):85-94. PubMed ID: 20140900
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Empirical vs natural weighting in random effects meta-analysis.
    Shuster JJ
    Stat Med; 2010 May; 29(12):1259-65. PubMed ID: 19475538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The use of meta-analytic statistical significance testing.
    Polanin JR; Pigott TD
    Res Synth Methods; 2015 Mar; 6(1):63-73. PubMed ID: 26035470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comments on 'How conservative is Fisher's exact test? A quantitative evaluation of the two-sample comparative binomial trial' by G. G. Crans and J. J. Shuster, Statistics in Medicine 2008; 27:3598-3611.
    Martín Andrés A; Herranz Tejedor I
    Stat Med; 2009 Jan; 28(1):173-4. PubMed ID: 18825654
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Statistical inference of risk difference in K correlated 2 x 2 tables with structural zero.
    Wang SF; Tang NS; Zhang B; Wang XR
    Pharm Stat; 2009; 8(4):317-32. PubMed ID: 19152229
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Meta-regression with partial information on summary trial or patient characteristics.
    Hemming K; Hutton JL; Maguire MG; Marson AG
    Stat Med; 2010 May; 29(12):1312-24. PubMed ID: 20087842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. How meta-analysis increases statistical power.
    Cohn LD; Becker BJ
    Psychol Methods; 2003 Sep; 8(3):243-53. PubMed ID: 14596489
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comments on 'A note on the power prior' by Neuenschwander B, Branson M and Spiegelhalter DJ. Statistics in Medicine; DOI: 10.1002/sim.3722.
    Gajewski BJ
    Stat Med; 2010 Mar; 29(6):708-9; author reply 709-10. PubMed ID: 20186920
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Explorations in statistics: power.
    Curran-Everett D
    Adv Physiol Educ; 2010 Jun; 34(2):41-3. PubMed ID: 20522895
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. [The results of a single clinical trial-is it sufficient information?].
    Cucherat M
    Rev Prat; 2000 Apr; 50(8):846-50. PubMed ID: 10874861
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Statistical inference: hypothesis testing.
    Expósito-Ruiz M; Pérez-Vicente S; Rivas-Ruiz F
    Allergol Immunopathol (Madr); 2010; 38(5):266-77. PubMed ID: 20817378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.