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 *

338 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23200211)

  • 1. [GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence: publication bias].
    Nolting A; Perleth M; Langer G; Meerpohl JJ; Gartlehner G; Kaminski-Hartenthaler A; Schünemann HJ
    Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes; 2012; 106(9):670-6. PubMed ID: 23200211
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence--publication bias.
    Guyatt GH; Oxman AD; Montori V; Vist G; Kunz R; Brozek J; Alonso-Coello P; Djulbegovic B; Atkins D; Falck-Ytter Y; Williams JW; Meerpohl J; Norris SL; Akl EA; Schünemann HJ
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2011 Dec; 64(12):1277-82. PubMed ID: 21802904
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Bias in clinical intervention research.
    Gluud LL
    Am J Epidemiol; 2006 Mar; 163(6):493-501. PubMed ID: 16443796
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Publication bias in the anesthesiology literature.
    De Oliveira GS; Chang R; Kendall MC; Fitzgerald PC; McCarthy RJ
    Anesth Analg; 2012 May; 114(5):1042-8. PubMed ID: 22344237
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. [GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence (confidence in the estimates of effect)].
    Meerpohl JJ; Langer G; Perleth M; Gartlehner G; Kaminski-Hartenthaler A; Schünemann H
    Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes; 2012; 106(6):449-56. PubMed ID: 22857733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. [GRADE guidelines: 6. Rating the quality of evidence: imprecision].
    Kulig M; Perleth M; Langer G; Meerpohl JJ; Gartlehner G; Kaminski-Hartenthaler A; Schünemann HJ
    Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes; 2012; 106(9):677-88. PubMed ID: 23200212
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence--study limitations (risk of bias).
    Guyatt GH; Oxman AD; Vist G; Kunz R; Brozek J; Alonso-Coello P; Montori V; Akl EA; Djulbegovic B; Falck-Ytter Y; Norris SL; Williams JW; Atkins D; Meerpohl J; Schünemann HJ
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2011 Apr; 64(4):407-15. PubMed ID: 21247734
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Evidence-based oral and maxillofacial surgery: some pitfalls and limitations.
    Pitak-Arnnop P; Hemprich A; Pausch NC
    J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2011 Jan; 69(1):252-7. PubMed ID: 21050635
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Capture-recapture is a potentially useful method for assessing publication bias.
    Bennett DA; Latham NK; Stretton C; Anderson CS
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2004 Apr; 57(4):349-57. PubMed ID: 15135835
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Evidence-based periodontology, systematic reviews and research quality.
    Needleman I; Moles DR; Worthington H
    Periodontol 2000; 2005; 37():12-28. PubMed ID: 15655022
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. [Evidence-based medicine is gold standard for medical guidelines].
    Pfennig A; Hölter G
    Psychiatr Prax; 2011 Jul; 38(5):218-20. PubMed ID: 21695665
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [Publication bias in trials other than RCTs].
    Timmer A
    Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes; 2011; 105(3):194-200. PubMed ID: 21530909
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Uptake of methods to deal with publication bias in systematic reviews has increased over time, but there is still much scope for improvement.
    Parekh-Bhurke S; Kwok CS; Pang C; Hooper L; Loke YK; Ryder JJ; Sutton AJ; Hing CB; Harvey I; Song F
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2011 Apr; 64(4):349-57. PubMed ID: 20800992
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence--indirectness.
    Guyatt GH; Oxman AD; Kunz R; Woodcock J; Brozek J; Helfand M; Alonso-Coello P; Falck-Ytter Y; Jaeschke R; Vist G; Akl EA; Post PN; Norris S; Meerpohl J; Shukla VK; Nasser M; Schünemann HJ;
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2011 Dec; 64(12):1303-10. PubMed ID: 21802903
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Contour-enhanced meta-analysis funnel plots help distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetry.
    Peters JL; Sutton AJ; Jones DR; Abrams KR; Rushton L
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Oct; 61(10):991-6. PubMed ID: 18538991
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Does a "Level I Evidence" rating imply high quality of reporting in orthopaedic randomised controlled trials?
    Poolman RW; Struijs PA; Krips R; Sierevelt IN; Lutz KH; Bhandari M
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2006 Sep; 6():44. PubMed ID: 16965628
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Randomized controlled trials in otolaryngology journals.
    Yao F; Singer M; Rosenfeld RM
    Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2007 Oct; 137(4):539-44. PubMed ID: 17903567
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence - indirectness].
    Rasch A; Perleth M; Langer G; Meerpohl JJ; Gartlehner G; Kaminski-Hartenthaler A; Schünemann HJ
    Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes; 2012; 106(10):745-53. PubMed ID: 23217728
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Publication bias in psychological science: prevalence, methods for identifying and controlling, and implications for the use of meta-analyses.
    Ferguson CJ; Brannick MT
    Psychol Methods; 2012 Mar; 17(1):120-8. PubMed ID: 21787082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 17.