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 *

91 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21150190)

  • 41. On the criteria used for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials included in systematic reviews and meta-analyses addressing adverse effects.
    Bonovas S; Lytras T; Nikolopoulos G
    Eur J Epidemiol; 2015 Mar; 30(3):249-50. PubMed ID: 25773753
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. [Clinical equipoise and systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials].
    Catalá-López F; González-Bermejo D; de la Fuente Honrubia C; Macías Saint-Gerons D
    Med Clin (Barc); 2015 Dec; 145(11):496-8. PubMed ID: 26004273
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. [Treatment of infections of patient with hematological malignancy].
    Sasada M
    Nihon Rinsho; 2007 Jan; 65 Suppl 1():445-9. PubMed ID: 17474445
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Users' guide to the surgical literature: how to use a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.
    Bhandari M; Devereaux PJ; Montori V; Cinà C; Tandan V; Guyatt GH;
    Can J Surg; 2004 Feb; 47(1):60-7. PubMed ID: 14997929
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. From narrative to systematic reviews and meta-analyses in assessing the effectiveness of psychiatric treatments.
    Tansella M
    Epidemiol Psichiatr Soc; 2003; 12(3):135-6. PubMed ID: 14610847
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Bias because of selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomized trials of healthcare interventions.
    Redulla R
    Int J Evid Based Healthc; 2016 Dec; 14(4):183-185. PubMed ID: 27471792
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Re: Medical expulsive therapy as an adjunct to improve shockwave lithotripsy outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis (from Schuler TD, Shahani R, Honey RJ, and Pace KT. J Endourol 2009; 23:387-393).
    Zhu Y; Duijvesz D; Lock TM
    J Endourol; 2009 Aug; 23(8):1365-6. PubMed ID: 19566414
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis.
    Lewis G; Churchill R; Hotopp M
    Psychol Med; 1997 Jan; 27(1):3-7. PubMed ID: 9122306
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Surveying the literature from animal experiments: avoidance of bias is objective of systematic reviews, not meta-analysis.
    Khan KS; Mignini L
    BMJ; 2005 Jul; 331(7508):110-1. PubMed ID: 16002896
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Top-ten infections in onco-hematological patients (2015-2017).
    Ruiz Camps I; Aguilar Company J
    Rev Esp Quimioter; 2018 Sep; 31 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):47-51. PubMed ID: 30209924
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Gaps in the systematic reviews of the telemedicine field.
    Bahaadinbeigy K; Yogesan K; Wootton R
    J Telemed Telecare; 2010; 16(7):414-6. PubMed ID: 20841383
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Systematic reviews: what can they do for you?
    Duley L
    J R Soc Med; 1996 May; 89(5):242-4. PubMed ID: 8778428
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. The case for duplication of meta-analyses and systematic reviews.
    Krumholz H
    BMJ; 2013 Sep; 347():f5506. PubMed ID: 24022045
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. The problem of duplicate systematic reviews.
    Moher D
    BMJ; 2013 Aug; 347():f5040. PubMed ID: 23945367
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Restrictive or responsive? Outcome classification and unplanned sub-group analyses in meta-analyses.
    Heesen M; Klimek M; Hoeks SE
    Anaesthesia; 2018 Mar; 73(3):279-283. PubMed ID: 28975601
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Misgivings about PROSPERO in solving the problem of duplicate systematic reviews.
    Waugh N
    BMJ; 2013 Sep; 347():f5496. PubMed ID: 24022042
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews.
    Clarke M; Greaves L
    BMJ; 1995 Mar; 310(6981):741. PubMed ID: 7711564
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials: important for clinical pharmacologists.
    Herxheimer A
    Br J Clin Pharmacol; 1993 Dec; 36(6):507-9. PubMed ID: 12959267
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Writing to authors of systematic reviews elicited further data in 17% of cases.
    McGrath J; Davies G; Soares K
    BMJ; 1998 Feb; 316(7131):631. PubMed ID: 9518939
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: myths and misconceptions.
    Petticrew M
    BMJ; 2001 Jan; 322(7278):98-101. PubMed ID: 11154628
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.