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 *

160 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21531537)

  • 1. Testing a tool for the classification of study designs in systematic reviews of interventions and exposures showed moderate reliability and low accuracy.
    Hartling L; Bond K; Santaguida PL; Viswanathan M; Dryden DM
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2011 Aug; 64(8):861-71. PubMed ID: 21531537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A newly developed tool for classifying study designs in systematic reviews of interventions and exposures showed substantial reliability and validity.
    Seo HJ; Kim SY; Lee YJ; Jang BH; Park JE; Sheen SS; Hahn SK
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2016 Feb; 70():200-5. PubMed ID: 26408805
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Interrater reliability in assessing quality of diagnostic accuracy studies using the QUADAS tool. A preliminary assessment.
    Hollingworth W; Medina LS; Lenkinski RE; Shibata DK; Bernal B; Zurakowski D; Comstock B; Jarvik JG
    Acad Radiol; 2006 Jul; 13(7):803-10. PubMed ID: 16777553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The development of a quality appraisal tool for studies of diagnostic reliability (QAREL).
    Lucas NP; Macaskill P; Irwig L; Bogduk N
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2010 Aug; 63(8):854-61. PubMed ID: 20056381
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A review of critical appraisal tools show they lack rigor: Alternative tool structure is proposed.
    Crowe M; Sheppard L
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2011 Jan; 64(1):79-89. PubMed ID: 21130354
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Development of a quality-assessment tool for experimental bruxism studies: reliability and validity.
    Dawson A; Raphael KG; Glaros A; Axelsson S; Arima T; Ernberg M; Farella M; Lobbezoo F; Manfredini D; Michelotti A; Svensson P; List T
    J Orofac Pain; 2013; 27(2):111-22. PubMed ID: 23630683
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Emergence of "pseudoscience".
    Healey MA
    Can Fam Physician; 1998 Nov; 44():2374-5. PubMed ID: 9839046
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Systematic reviews explained: AMSTAR-how to tell the good from the bad and the ugly.
    Sharif MO; Janjua-Sharif FN; Ali H; Ahmed F
    Oral Health Dent Manag; 2013 Mar; 12(1):9-16. PubMed ID: 23474576
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: part 6. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies.
    Manchikanti L; Datta S; Smith HS; Hirsch JA
    Pain Physician; 2009; 12(5):819-50. PubMed ID: 19787009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. An analysis of systematic reviews indicated low incorpororation of results from clinical trial quality assessment.
    de Craen AJ; van Vliet HA; Helmerhorst FM
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2005 Mar; 58(3):311-3. PubMed ID: 15718121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. From the five blind men to Cochrane Complementary Medicine systematic reviews.
    Ezzo J
    J Altern Complement Med; 2003 Dec; 9(6):969-72. PubMed ID: 14736367
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Quality of manuscript reviews in nursing research.
    Henly SJ; Dougherty MC
    Nurs Outlook; 2009; 57(1):18-26. PubMed ID: 19150263
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Practical considerations on the design, execution and analysis of developmental neurotoxicity studies to be published in Neurotoxicology and Teratology.
    Maurissen J
    Neurotoxicol Teratol; 2010; 32(2):121-3. PubMed ID: 19755149
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Do RAEs accurately measure the quality of nursing research?
    Richards D; Watson R
    Nurs Times; 2002 Oct 15-21; 98(42):17. PubMed ID: 12432659
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Cochrane reviews used more rigorous methods than non-Cochrane reviews: survey of systematic reviews in physiotherapy.
    Moseley AM; Elkins MR; Herbert RD; Maher CG; Sherrington C
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Oct; 62(10):1021-30. PubMed ID: 19282144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The evidence for nursing interventions in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
    Mistiaen P; Poot E; Hickox S; Wagner C
    Nurse Res; 2004; 12(2):71-80. PubMed ID: 15636007
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Quality standards are needed for reporting of test accuracy studies for animal diseases.
    Gardner IA
    Prev Vet Med; 2010 Dec; 97(3-4):136-43. PubMed ID: 20950876
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Systematic reviews: what do they involve?
    Bannigan K; Droogan J; Entwistle V
    Nurs Times; 1997 Apr 30-May 6; 93(18):52-3. PubMed ID: 9188422
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Deconstructing evidence in orthodontics: making sense of systematic reviews, randomized clinical trials, and meta-analyses.
    Rinchuse DJ; Rinchuse DJ; Kandasamy S; Ackerman MB
    World J Orthod; 2008; 9(2):167-76. PubMed ID: 18575311
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews.
    Jadad AR; Cook DJ; Browman GP
    CMAJ; 1997 May; 156(10):1411-6. PubMed ID: 9164400
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.