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 *

117 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23651766)

  • 1. Not PEDro's bias: summary quality scores can be used in meta-analysis.
    Doi SA; Barendregt JJ
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2013 Aug; 66(8):940-1. PubMed ID: 23651766
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. PEDro's bias: summary quality scores should not be used in meta-analysis.
    da Costa BR; Hilfiker R; Egger M
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2013 Jan; 66(1):75-7. PubMed ID: 23177896
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. da Costa and colleagues' criticism of PEDro scores is not supported by the data.
    Costa LO; Maher CG; Moseley AM; Elkins MR; Shiwa SR; Herbert RD; Sherrington C
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2013 Oct; 66(10):1192-3. PubMed ID: 23849739
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Incorporating variations in the quality of individual randomized trials into meta-analysis.
    Detsky AS; Naylor CD; O'Rourke K; McGeer AJ; L'Abbé KA
    J Clin Epidemiol; 1992 Mar; 45(3):255-65. PubMed ID: 1569422
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Adjustment of meta-analyses on the basis of quality scores should be abandoned.
    Herbison P; Hay-Smith J; Gillespie WJ
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2006 Dec; 59(12):1249-56. PubMed ID: 17098567
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Can quality of clinical trials and meta-analyses be quantified?
    Ioannidis JP; Lau J
    Lancet; 1998 Aug; 352(9128):590-1. PubMed ID: 9746014
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. [Meta-analyses to reveal insufficient mega-trials].
    Graudal NA; Galløe AM
    Ugeskr Laeger; 1998 Jun; 160(24):3574. PubMed ID: 9641048
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Value and limitation of meta-analysis.
    Verstraete M
    Pathophysiol Haemost Thromb; 2002; 32(5-6):278-81. PubMed ID: 13679657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Quality of reporting of meta-analyses: the QUOROM statement. Will it help?
    Christensen E
    J Hepatol; 2001 Feb; 34(2):342-5. PubMed ID: 11281568
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Fables or foibles: inherent problems with RCTs.
    Rosner A
    J Manipulative Physiol Ther; 2003 Sep; 26(7):460-7. PubMed ID: 12975633
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Assessing the quality of reports of randomised trials: implications for the conduct of meta-analyses.
    Moher D; Cook DJ; Jadad AR; Tugwell P; Moher M; Jones A; Pham B; Klassen TP
    Health Technol Assess; 1999; 3(12):i-iv, 1-98. PubMed ID: 10374081
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Understanding placebo effects in homeopathic clinical trials.
    Thompson T; Weiss M
    J Altern Complement Med; 2005 Oct; 11(5):784. PubMed ID: 16296906
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Single-center trials show larger treatment effects than multicenter trials: evidence from a meta-epidemiologic study.
    Dechartres A; Boutron I; Trinquart L; Charles P; Ravaud P
    Ann Intern Med; 2011 Jul; 155(1):39-51. PubMed ID: 21727292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Metabias: a challenge for comparative effectiveness research.
    Goodman S; Dickersin K
    Ann Intern Med; 2011 Jul; 155(1):61-2. PubMed ID: 21727295
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Impact of Selection Bias on Treatment Effect Size Estimates in Randomized Trials of Oral Health Interventions: A Meta-epidemiological Study.
    Saltaji H; Armijo-Olivo S; Cummings GG; Amin M; da Costa BR; Flores-Mir C
    J Dent Res; 2018 Jan; 97(1):5-13. PubMed ID: 28813182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Assessing the impact of attrition in randomized controlled trials.
    Hewitt CE; Kumaravel B; Dumville JC; Torgerson DJ;
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2010 Nov; 63(11):1264-70. PubMed ID: 20573482
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Considerations for the meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Summary of a panel discussion.
    Boissel JP; Blanchard J; Panak E; Peyrieux JC; Sacks H
    Control Clin Trials; 1989 Sep; 10(3):254-81. PubMed ID: 2791560
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [Meta-analyses in psychopharmacotherapy: garbage in--garbage out?].
    Weinmann S
    Psychiatr Prax; 2009 Sep; 36(6):255-7. PubMed ID: 19707997
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?
    Moher D; Pham B; Jones A; Cook DJ; Jadad AR; Moher M; Tugwell P; Klassen TP
    Lancet; 1998 Aug; 352(9128):609-13. PubMed ID: 9746022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.