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 *

138 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23535676)

  • 1. Workshop 11-sources of bias in studies of systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis.
    Yu IT; Tse SL
    Hong Kong Med J; 2013 Apr; 19(2):156-8. PubMed ID: 23535676
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Methodologic issues in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
    Montori VM; Swiontkowski MF; Cook DJ
    Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2003 Aug; (413):43-54. PubMed ID: 12897595
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Systematic reviews of meta-analyses: applications and limitations.
    Delgado-Rodríguez M
    J Epidemiol Community Health; 2006 Feb; 60(2):90-2. PubMed ID: 16415253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. How to read and understand and use systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
    Leucht S; Kissling W; Davis JM
    Acta Psychiatr Scand; 2009 Jun; 119(6):443-50. PubMed ID: 19469725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Statistical methods can be improved within Cochrane pregnancy and childbirth reviews.
    Riley RD; Gates S; Neilson J; Alfirevic Z
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2011 Jun; 64(6):608-18. PubMed ID: 21109399
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Systematic reviews of surgical interventions.
    Burton M; Clarke M
    Surg Clin North Am; 2006 Feb; 86(1):101-14, ix. PubMed ID: 16442423
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Methodologic issues in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
    Handoll HH; Gillespie LD; Gillespie WJ; Howe TE; Madhok R; Parker MJ
    Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2004 May; (422):272; author reply 273-4. PubMed ID: 15187871
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Systematic literature review and meta-analysis.
    Hughes EG
    Semin Reprod Endocrinol; 1996 May; 14(2):161-9. PubMed ID: 8796939
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Commentary: searching for trials for systematic reviews: what difference does it make?
    Clarke M
    Int J Epidemiol; 2002 Feb; 31(1):123-4. PubMed ID: 11914307
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. [Evaluating the methodologic quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool for the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews].
    Coenen M; Schuetz GM; Dewey M
    Rofo; 2013 Oct; 185(10):937-40. PubMed ID: 24490255
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Primer: strengths and weaknesses of meta-analysis.
    Finckh A; Tramèr MR
    Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol; 2008 Mar; 4(3):146-52. PubMed ID: 18227829
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Research synthesis in veterinary science: Narrative reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analysis.
    O'Connor A; Sargeant J
    Vet J; 2015 Dec; 206(3):261-7. PubMed ID: 26522692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Statistical methods for dealing with publication bias in meta-analysis.
    Jin ZC; Zhou XH; He J
    Stat Med; 2015 Jan; 34(2):343-60. PubMed ID: 25363575
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [Therapeutic decisions based on meta analyses].
    Komossa K; Kissling W; Leucht S; Möller HJ
    Psychiatr Prax; 2008 Nov; 35(8):373-5. PubMed ID: 19016212
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. [Instructions for aggregated evidence: About reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses (part 2)].
    Günther J; Briel M; Schindler B
    Med Monatsschr Pharm; 2015 Oct; 38(10):401-8. PubMed ID: 26731858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.