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 *

152 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23218569)

  • 1. Random error in cardiovascular meta-analyses: how common are false positive and false negative results?
    AlBalawi Z; McAlister FA; Thorlund K; Wong M; Wetterslev J
    Int J Cardiol; 2013 Sep; 168(2):1102-7. PubMed ID: 23218569
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Can trial sequential monitoring boundaries reduce spurious inferences from meta-analyses?
    Thorlund K; Devereaux PJ; Wetterslev J; Guyatt G; Ioannidis JP; Thabane L; Gluud LL; Als-Nielsen B; Gluud C
    Int J Epidemiol; 2009 Feb; 38(1):276-86. PubMed ID: 18824467
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Trial sequential analysis reveals insufficient information size and potentially false positive results in many meta-analyses.
    Brok J; Thorlund K; Gluud C; Wetterslev J
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Aug; 61(8):763-9. PubMed ID: 18411040
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Apparently conclusive meta-analyses may be inconclusive--Trial sequential analysis adjustment of random error risk due to repetitive testing of accumulating data in apparently conclusive neonatal meta-analyses.
    Brok J; Thorlund K; Wetterslev J; Gluud C
    Int J Epidemiol; 2009 Feb; 38(1):287-98. PubMed ID: 18824466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Trial Sequential Analysis in systematic reviews with meta-analysis.
    Wetterslev J; Jakobsen JC; Gluud C
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Mar; 17(1):39. PubMed ID: 28264661
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Apparently conclusive meta-analyses on interventions in critical care may be inconclusive-a meta-epidemiological study.
    Koster TM; Wetterslev J; Gluud C; Jakobsen JC; Kaufmann T; Eck RJ; Koster G; Hiemstra B; van der Horst ICC; Keus E
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2019 Oct; 114():1-10. PubMed ID: 31200004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Trial sequential analysis may establish when firm evidence is reached in cumulative meta-analysis.
    Wetterslev J; Thorlund K; Brok J; Gluud C
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Jan; 61(1):64-75. PubMed ID: 18083463
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: quantifying the risks of false-positives and false-negatives.
    Brookes ST; Whitley E; Peters TJ; Mulheran PA; Egger M; Davey Smith G
    Health Technol Assess; 2001; 5(33):1-56. PubMed ID: 11701102
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Trial sequential analysis may be insufficient to draw firm conclusions regarding statistically significant treatment differences using observed intervention effects: a case study of meta-analyses of multiple myeloma trials.
    Miladinovic B; Kumar A; Hozo I; Mahony H; Djulbegovic B
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2013 Mar; 34(2):257-61. PubMed ID: 23274403
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Optimal information size in trial sequential analysis of time-to-event outcomes reveals potentially inconclusive results because of the risk of random error.
    Miladinovic B; Mhaskar R; Hozo I; Kumar A; Mahony H; Djulbegovic B
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2013 Jun; 66(6):654-9. PubMed ID: 23403248
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. False-positive findings in Cochrane meta-analyses with and without application of trial sequential analysis: an empirical review.
    Imberger G; Thorlund K; Gluud C; Wetterslev J
    BMJ Open; 2016 Aug; 6(8):e011890. PubMed ID: 27519923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Evidence based evaluation of immuno-coagulatory interventions in critical care.
    Afshari A
    Dan Med Bull; 2011 Sep; 58(9):B4316. PubMed ID: 21893014
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Systematic Reviews of Anesthesiologic Interventions Reported as Statistically Significant: Problems with Power, Precision, and Type 1 Error Protection.
    Imberger G; Gluud C; Boylan J; Wetterslev J
    Anesth Analg; 2015 Dec; 121(6):1611-22. PubMed ID: 26579662
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Effect of reporting bias on meta-analyses of drug trials: reanalysis of meta-analyses.
    Hart B; Lundh A; Bero L
    BMJ; 2012 Jan; 344():d7202. PubMed ID: 22214754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials with a focus on drug safety: an empirical assessment.
    Hammad TA; Neyarapally GA; Pinheiro SP; Iyasu S; Rochester G; Dal Pan G
    Clin Trials; 2013; 10(3):389-97. PubMed ID: 23508987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Research outcomes and recommendations for the assessment of progression in cancer clinical trials from a PhRMA working group.
    Stone AM; Bushnell W; Denne J; Sargent DJ; Amit O; Chen C; Bailey-Iacona R; Helterbrand J; Williams G;
    Eur J Cancer; 2011 Aug; 47(12):1763-71. PubMed ID: 21435858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Errors in the conduct of systematic reviews of pharmacological interventions for irritable bowel syndrome.
    Ford AC; Guyatt GH; Talley NJ; Moayyedi P
    Am J Gastroenterol; 2010 Feb; 105(2):280-8. PubMed ID: 19920807
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The quality of reports of critical care meta-analyses in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: an independent appraisal.
    Delaney A; Bagshaw SM; Ferland A; Laupland K; Manns B; Doig C
    Crit Care Med; 2007 Feb; 35(2):589-94. PubMed ID: 17205029
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Trial sequential analyses of meta-analyses of complications in laparoscopic vs. small-incision cholecystectomy: more randomized patients are needed.
    Keus F; Wetterslev J; Gluud C; Gooszen HG; van Laarhoven CJ
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2010 Mar; 63(3):246-56. PubMed ID: 20004553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Empirical assessment suggests that existing evidence could be used more fully in designing randomized controlled trials.
    Goudie AC; Sutton AJ; Jones DR; Donald A
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2010 Sep; 63(9):983-91. PubMed ID: 20573483
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.