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 *

103 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21727271)

  • 1. Arguments for and against standardized mean differences (effect sizes).
    Cummings P
    Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med; 2011 Jul; 165(7):592-6. PubMed ID: 21727271
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Meta-analysis based on standardized effects is unreliable.
    Cummings P
    Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med; 2004 Jun; 158(6):595-7. PubMed ID: 15184227
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. How to do a meta-analysis.
    Field AP; Gillett R
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2010 Nov; 63(Pt 3):665-94. PubMed ID: 20497626
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Hypothesis tests for population heterogeneity in meta-analysis.
    Viechtbauer W
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2007 May; 60(Pt 1):29-60. PubMed ID: 17535578
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Synthesis of research findings through meta-analysis.
    Mottola CA
    Decubitus; 1992 Sep; 5(5):48-50. PubMed ID: 1418592
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. An alternative to Cohen's standardized mean difference effect size: a robust parameter and confidence interval in the two independent groups case.
    Algina J; Keselman HJ; Penfield RD
    Psychol Methods; 2005 Sep; 10(3):317-28. PubMed ID: 16221031
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Meta-analysis: current issues in research synthesis.
    Olkin I
    Stat Med; 1996 Jun; 15(12):1253-7; discussion 1259-62. PubMed ID: 8817799
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Meta-analysis of raw mean differences.
    Bond CF; Wiitala WL; Richard FD
    Psychol Methods; 2003 Dec; 8(4):406-18. PubMed ID: 14664679
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Deriving treatment recommendations from evidence within randomized trials. The role and limitation of meta-analysis.
    Freemantle N; Mason J; Eccles M
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 1999; 15(2):304-15. PubMed ID: 10507190
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Confidence intervals for the overall effect size in random-effects meta-analysis.
    Sánchez-Meca J; Marín-Martínez F
    Psychol Methods; 2008 Mar; 13(1):31-48. PubMed ID: 18331152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Bounds on potential risks and causal risk differences under assumptions about confounding parameters.
    Chiba Y; Sato T; Greenland S
    Stat Med; 2007 Dec; 26(28):5125-35. PubMed ID: 17525935
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Effect of formal statistical significance on the credibility of observational associations.
    Ioannidis JP
    Am J Epidemiol; 2008 Aug; 168(4):374-83; discussion 384-90. PubMed ID: 18611956
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Dependent effect sizes in meta-analysis: incorporating the degree of interdependence.
    Cheung SF; Chan DK
    J Appl Psychol; 2004 Oct; 89(5):780-91. PubMed ID: 15506860
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Meta-analysis in occupational epidemiology: a review of practice.
    McElvenny DM; Armstrong BG; Järup L; Higgins JP
    Occup Med (Lond); 2004 Aug; 54(5):336-44. PubMed ID: 15289591
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Larger effect sizes were associated with higher quality ratings in complementary and alternative medicine randomized controlled trials.
    Bausell RB; Lee WL; Soeken KL; Li YF; Berman BM
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2004 May; 57(5):438-46. PubMed ID: 15196613
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Toward non-parametric and clinically meaningful moderators and mediators.
    Kraemer HC
    Stat Med; 2008 May; 27(10):1679-92. PubMed ID: 18008395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Understanding systematic reviews and meta-analysis.
    Akobeng AK
    Arch Dis Child; 2005 Aug; 90(8):845-8. PubMed ID: 16040886
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Interpreting epidemiologic research: lessons from studies of childhood cancer.
    Linet MS; Wacholder S; Zahm SH
    Pediatrics; 2003 Jul; 112(1 Pt 2):218-32. PubMed ID: 12837914
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Statistical and clinical significance: alternative methods for understanding the importance of research findings.
    Glaros AG
    J Ir Dent Assoc; 2004; 50(3):128-31. PubMed ID: 15481525
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.