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 *

376 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21289880)

  • 61. Promoting and supporting self-management for adults living in the community with physical chronic illness: A systematic review of the effectiveness and meaningfulness of the patient-practitioner encounter.
    Rees S; Williams A
    JBI Libr Syst Rev; 2009; 7(13):492-582. PubMed ID: 27819974
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 62. [Psychometric characteristics of questionnaires designed to assess the knowledge, perceptions and practices of health care professionals with regards to alcoholic patients].
    Jaussent S; Labarère J; Boyer JP; François P
    Encephale; 2004; 30(5):437-46. PubMed ID: 15627048
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 63. Systematic reviews synthesized evidence without consistent quality assessment of primary studies examining epidemiology of chronic diseases.
    Shamliyan T; Kane RL; Jansen S
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2012 Jun; 65(6):610-8. PubMed ID: 22424987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 64. 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]  

  • 65. Evaluation of the quality of prognosis studies in systematic reviews.
    Hayden JA; Côté P; Bombardier C
    Ann Intern Med; 2006 Mar; 144(6):427-37. PubMed ID: 16549855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 66. [A systematic review on population-based indicators of the quality of care in formal and informal provider networks and their application in health economic evaluations].
    Seibert K; Stiefler S; Domhoff D; Wolf-Ostermann K; Peschke D
    Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes; 2019 Aug; 144-145():7-23. PubMed ID: 31327735
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 67. The GRACE checklist for rating the quality of observational studies of comparative effectiveness: a tale of hope and caution.
    Dreyer NA; Velentgas P; Westrich K; Dubois R
    J Manag Care Spec Pharm; 2014 Mar; 20(3):301-8. PubMed ID: 24564810
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 68. Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: what are they and which is better?
    Ma LL; Wang YY; Yang ZH; Huang D; Weng H; Zeng XT
    Mil Med Res; 2020 Feb; 7(1):7. PubMed ID: 32111253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 69. Completeness of reporting of systematic reviews in the animal health literature: A meta-research study.
    Sargeant JM; Reynolds K; Winder CB; O'Connor AM
    Prev Vet Med; 2021 Oct; 195():105472. PubMed ID: 34438246
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 70. Health economic evaluation in orthotics and prosthetics: a systematic review protocol.
    Clarke L; Dillon M; Shiell A
    Syst Rev; 2019 Jun; 8(1):152. PubMed ID: 31248460
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 71. Evaluation of the reliability, usability, and applicability of AMSTAR, AMSTAR 2, and ROBIS: protocol for a descriptive analytic study.
    Gates A; Gates M; Duarte G; Cary M; Becker M; Prediger B; Vandermeer B; Fernandes RM; Pieper D; Hartling L
    Syst Rev; 2018 Jun; 7(1):85. PubMed ID: 29898777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 72. Systematic mapping of checklists for assessing transferability.
    Munthe-Kaas H; Nøkleby H; Nguyen L
    Syst Rev; 2019 Jan; 8(1):22. PubMed ID: 30642403
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 73. NUQUEST-NUtrition QUality Evaluation Strengthening Tools: development of tools for the evaluation of risk of bias in nutrition studies.
    Kelly SE; Greene-Finestone LS; Yetley EA; Benkhedda K; Brooks SPJ; Wells GA; MacFarlane AJ
    Am J Clin Nutr; 2022 Jan; 115(1):256-271. PubMed ID: 34605544
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 74. Levels of Evidence, Quality Assessment, and Risk of Bias: Evaluating the Internal Validity of Primary Research.
    Sargeant JM; Brennan ML; O'Connor AM
    Front Vet Sci; 2022; 9():960957. PubMed ID: 35903128
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 75. Indirect comparisons of therapeutic interventions.
    Schöttker B; Lühmann D; Boulkhemair D; Raspe H
    GMS Health Technol Assess; 2009 Jul; 5():Doc09. PubMed ID: 21289896
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 76. Identification of tools used to assess the external validity of randomized controlled trials in reviews: a systematic review of measurement properties.
    Jung A; Balzer J; Braun T; Luedtke K
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2022 Apr; 22(1):100. PubMed ID: 35387582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 77. Assessing risk of bias in human environmental epidemiology studies using three tools: different conclusions from different tools.
    Eick SM; Goin DE; Chartres N; Lam J; Woodruff TJ
    Syst Rev; 2020 Oct; 9(1):249. PubMed ID: 33121530
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 78. Assessing the quality of studies in meta-research: Review/guidelines on the most important quality assessment tools.
    Luchini C; Veronese N; Nottegar A; Shin JI; Gentile G; Granziol U; Soysal P; Alexinschi O; Smith L; Solmi M
    Pharm Stat; 2021 Jan; 20(1):185-195. PubMed ID: 32935459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 79.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 80.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 19.