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 *

230 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21474279)

  • 61. A theoretical analysis showed that blinding cannot eliminate potential for bias associated with beliefs about allocation in randomized clinical trials.
    Mathieu E; Herbert RD; McGeechan K; Herbert JJ; Barratt AL
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2014 Jun; 67(6):667-71. PubMed ID: 24767518
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 62. Catalogue of bias: allocation bias.
    Nunan D; Heneghan C; Spencer EA
    BMJ Evid Based Med; 2018 Feb; 23(1):20-21. PubMed ID: 29367320
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 63. An effectiveness trial of a diagnostic test in a busy outpatients department in a developing country: issues around allocation concealment and envelope randomization.
    Swingler GH; Zwarenstein M
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2000 Jul; 53(7):702-6. PubMed ID: 10941947
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 64. Subverting randomization in controlled trials.
    Schulz KF
    JAMA; 1995 Nov; 274(18):1456-8. PubMed ID: 7474192
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 65. Lack of blinding of outcome assessors in animal model experiments implies risk of observer bias.
    Bello S; Krogsbøll LT; Gruber J; Zhao ZJ; Fischer D; Hróbjartsson A
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2014 Sep; 67(9):973-83. PubMed ID: 24972762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 66. Assessing allocation concealment and blinding in randomised controlled trials: why bother?
    Schulz KF
    Evid Based Nurs; 2001 Jan; 4(1):4-6. PubMed ID: 11707879
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 67. Commercial funding and estimated intervention effects in randomized clinical trials: Systematic review of meta-epidemiological studies.
    Nejstgaard CH; Laursen DRT; Lundh A; Hróbjartsson A
    Res Synth Methods; 2023 Mar; 14(2):144-155. PubMed ID: 36357935
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 68. Small studies may overestimate the effect sizes in critical care meta-analyses: a meta-epidemiological study.
    Zhang Z; Xu X; Ni H
    Crit Care; 2013 Jan; 17(1):R2. PubMed ID: 23302257
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 69. In Cochrane reviews, risk of bias assessments for allocation concealment were frequently not in line with Cochrane's Handbook guidance.
    Propadalo I; Tranfic M; Vuka I; Barcot O; Pericic TP; Puljak L
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2019 Feb; 106():10-17. PubMed ID: 30312657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 70. Subversion of allocation concealment in a randomised controlled trial: a historical case study.
    Kennedy ADM; Torgerson DJ; Campbell MK; Grant AM
    Trials; 2017 May; 18(1):204. PubMed ID: 28464922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 71. Controversy and Debate on Meta-epidemiology. Paper 1: Treatment effect sizes vary in randomized trials depending on the type of outcome measure.
    Berthelsen DB; Ginnerup-Nielsen E; Juhl C; Lund H; Henriksen M; Hróbjartsson A; Nielsen SM; Voshaar M; Christensen R
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2020 Jul; 123():27-38. PubMed ID: 32217079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 72. How randomised controlled trials (RCTs) work.
    Shields L; Twycross A
    Paediatr Nurs; 2005 Sep; 17(7):24. PubMed ID: 16178167
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 73. A Bias in the Evaluation of Bias Comparing Randomized Trials with Nonexperimental Studies.
    Franklin JM; Dejene S; Huybrechts KF; Wang SV; Kulldorff M; Rothman KJ
    Epidemiol Methods; 2017 Apr; 6(1):. PubMed ID: 29204330
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 74. Rank-Minimization with a two-step analysis should replace randomization in clinical trials.
    Taves DR
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2012 Jan; 65(1):3-6. PubMed ID: 22118264
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 75. Between-trial heterogeneity in meta-analyses may be partially explained by reported design characteristics.
    Rhodes KM; Turner RM; Savović J; Jones HE; Mawdsley D; Higgins JPT
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2018 Mar; 95():45-54. PubMed ID: 29217451
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 76. Practical aspects of randomization and blinding in randomized clinical trials.
    Bridgman S; Engebretsen L; Dainty K; Kirkley A; Maffulli N;
    Arthroscopy; 2003 Nov; 19(9):1000-6. PubMed ID: 14608321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 77. Mechanisms and direction of allocation bias in randomised clinical trials.
    Paludan-Müller A; Teindl Laursen DR; Hróbjartsson A
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2016 Oct; 16(1):133. PubMed ID: 27717321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 78. Controlled trials: allocation concealment, random allocation, and blinding.
    Sedgwick P
    BMJ; 2015 May; 350():h2633. PubMed ID: 25979365
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 79. Allocation concealment in clinical trials.
    Jüni P; Egger M
    JAMA; 2002 Nov; 288(19):2407-8; author reply 2408-9. PubMed ID: 12435252
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 80. Randomised controlled trials.
    Evans J
    Eye (Lond); 1995; 9 ( Pt 6)():684-5. PubMed ID: 8849534
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.