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 *

107 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23651766)

  • 21. Randomized controlled trial: the gold standard or an unobtainable fallacy?
    Bondemark L; Ruf S
    Eur J Orthod; 2015 Oct; 37(5):457-61. PubMed ID: 26136438
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Commentary: summary statistics of poor quality studies must be treated cautiously.
    Berlin JA
    BMJ; 1997 Feb; 314(7077):337. PubMed ID: 9040322
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Cautionary tales in the interpretation of systematic reviews of therapy trials.
    Scott I; Greenberg P; Poole P; Campbell D
    Intern Med J; 2006 Sep; 36(9):587-99. PubMed ID: 16911551
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. [Outcomes in randomized trials: Typology, relevance and importance for their standardization. Example of renoprotection].
    Sautenet B; Halimi JM; Caille A; Giraudeau B
    Presse Med; 2015 Nov; 44(11):1096-102. PubMed ID: 26454307
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. A meta-analysis of meta-analyses.
    Sigman M
    Fertil Steril; 2011 Jul; 96(1):11-4. PubMed ID: 21723440
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Cherry-picking by trialists and meta-analysts can drive conclusions about intervention efficacy.
    Mayo-Wilson E; Li T; Fusco N; Bertizzolo L; Canner JK; Cowley T; Doshi P; Ehmsen J; Gresham G; Guo N; Haythornthwaite JA; Heyward J; Hong H; Pham D; Payne JL; Rosman L; Stuart EA; Suarez-Cuervo C; Tolbert E; Twose C; Vedula S; Dickersin K
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2017 Nov; 91():95-110. PubMed ID: 28842290
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Inductive inference and experimental designs: The CONSORT and QUOROM statements.
    Lakhani KH
    Vet J; 2001 Mar; 161(2):102-3. PubMed ID: 11243679
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Meta-analysis of homoeopathy trials.
    Seed P
    Lancet; 1998 Jan; 351(9099):365; author reply 367-8. PubMed ID: 9652637
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. [Are treatment effects or adverse effects of significance for the association between financing and conclusions in randomized trials?].
    Als-Nielsen BE; Chen W; Gluud CN; Gluud LL
    Ugeskr Laeger; 2004 Apr; 166(18):1676-8. PubMed ID: 15174406
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Inappropriate conclusion from meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
    Barrington MJ; Olive DJ; Kluger R
    Anesthesiology; 2011 Jun; 114(6):1494-5; author reply 1495. PubMed ID: 21610464
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials: principles and pitfalls.
    da Costa BR; Juni P
    Eur Heart J; 2014 Dec; 35(47):3336-45. PubMed ID: 25416325
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Quality of Meta-Analyses for Randomized Trials in the Field of Hypertension: an Updated and Improved Systematic Review.
    Roush GC; Perez F; Abdelfattah R; Prindle A; Jean E; Singh T; Kostis JB; Kostis WJ; Elliott WJ; Berlin JA
    Curr Hypertens Rep; 2017 Sep; 19(9):71. PubMed ID: 28785887
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Is there an association between study size and reporting of study quality in dermatological clinical trials? A meta-epidemiological review.
    Ratib S; Wilkes SR; Grainge MJ; Thomas KS; Tobinska C; Williams HC
    Br J Dermatol; 2017 Jun; 176(6):1657-1658. PubMed ID: 27501121
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Can statistic adjustment of OR minimize the potential confounding bias for meta-analysis of case-control study? A secondary data analysis.
    Liu T; Nie X; Wu Z; Zhang Y; Feng G; Cai S; Lv Y; Peng X
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Dec; 17(1):179. PubMed ID: 29284414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Checklists are not only for the operating room.
    Connor S
    ANZ J Surg; 2013 Oct; 83(10):704-5. PubMed ID: 24251321
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. Deconstructing evidence in orthodontics: making sense of systematic reviews, randomized clinical trials, and meta-analyses.
    Rinchuse DJ; Rinchuse DJ; Kandasamy S; Ackerman MB
    World J Orthod; 2008; 9(2):167-76. PubMed ID: 18575311
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. CONSORT and QUOROM guidelines for reporting randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews.
    Turpin DL
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2005 Dec; 128(6):681-5; discussion 686. PubMed ID: 16360902
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. The reporting quality of meta-analyses improves: a random sampling study.
    Wen J; Ren Y; Wang L; Li Y; Liu Y; Zhou M; Liu P; Ye L; Li Y; Tian W
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Aug; 61(8):770-5. PubMed ID: 18411041
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Unit of analysis errors should be clarified in meta-analyses.
    Thomas RE; Ramsay CR; McAuley L; Grimshaw JM
    BMJ; 2003 Feb; 326(7385):397. PubMed ID: 12586684
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.