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 *

213 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23804970)

  • 1. Statistical methods for multivariate meta-analysis of diagnostic tests: An overview and tutorial.
    Ma X; Nie L; Cole SR; Chu H
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2016 Aug; 25(4):1596-619. PubMed ID: 23804970
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A unification of models for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies without a gold standard.
    Liu Y; Chen Y; Chu H
    Biometrics; 2015 Jun; 71(2):538-47. PubMed ID: 25358907
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Bivariate random effects meta-analysis of ROC curves.
    Arends LR; Hamza TH; van Houwelingen JC; Heijenbrok-Kal MH; Hunink MG; Stijnen T
    Med Decis Making; 2008; 28(5):621-38. PubMed ID: 18591542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Bivariate random-effects meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity with SAS PROC GLIMMIX.
    Menke J
    Methods Inf Med; 2010; 49(1):54-62, 62-4. PubMed ID: 19936437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Tutorial: statistical methods for the meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies.
    Schlattmann P
    Clin Chem Lab Med; 2023 Apr; 61(5):777-794. PubMed ID: 36656998
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Meta-analysis for the comparison of two diagnostic tests to a common gold standard: A generalized linear mixed model approach.
    Hoyer A; Kuss O
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2018 May; 27(5):1410-1421. PubMed ID: 27487844
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Bivariate random effects meta-analysis of diagnostic studies using generalized linear mixed models.
    Chu H; Guo H; Zhou Y
    Med Decis Making; 2010; 30(4):499-508. PubMed ID: 19959794
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies accounting for disease prevalence: alternative parameterizations and model selection.
    Chu H; Nie L; Cole SR; Poole C
    Stat Med; 2009 Aug; 28(18):2384-99. PubMed ID: 19499551
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A mixed effect model for bivariate meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies using a copula representation of the random effects distribution.
    Nikoloulopoulos AK
    Stat Med; 2015 Dec; 34(29):3842-65. PubMed ID: 26234584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A vine copula mixed effect model for trivariate meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies accounting for disease prevalence.
    Nikoloulopoulos AK
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2017 Oct; 26(5):2270-2286. PubMed ID: 26265766
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Beta-binomial analysis of variance model for network meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy data.
    N Nyaga V; Arbyn M; Aerts M
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2018 Aug; 27(8):2554-2566. PubMed ID: 29984635
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The Evaluation of Bivariate Mixed Models in Meta-analyses of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies with SAS, Stata and R.
    Vogelgesang F; Schlattmann P; Dewey M
    Methods Inf Med; 2018 May; 57(3):111-119. PubMed ID: 29719917
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Meta-analysis for the comparison of two diagnostic tests-A new approach based on copulas.
    Hoyer A; Kuss O
    Stat Med; 2018 Feb; 37(5):739-748. PubMed ID: 29193212
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A simple and robust method for multivariate meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy.
    Chen Y; Liu Y; Chu H; Ting Lee ML; Schmid CH
    Stat Med; 2017 Jan; 36(1):105-121. PubMed ID: 27580758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Multivariate random effects meta-analysis of diagnostic tests with multiple thresholds.
    Hamza TH; Arends LR; van Houwelingen HC; Stijnen T
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2009 Nov; 9():73. PubMed ID: 19903336
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Mixture models in diagnostic meta-analyses--clustering summary receiver operating characteristic curves accounted for heterogeneity and correlation.
    Schlattmann P; Verba M; Dewey M; Walther M
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 Jan; 68(1):61-72. PubMed ID: 25441701
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. An empirical comparison of methods for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy showed hierarchical models are necessary.
    Harbord RM; Whiting P; Sterne JA; Egger M; Deeks JJ; Shang A; Bachmann LM
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Nov; 61(11):1095-103. PubMed ID: 19208372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A hybrid Bayesian hierarchical model combining cohort and case-control studies for meta-analysis of diagnostic tests: Accounting for partial verification bias.
    Ma X; Chen Y; Cole SR; Chu H
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2016 Dec; 25(6):3015-3037. PubMed ID: 24862512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A unification of models for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies.
    Harbord RM; Deeks JJ; Egger M; Whiting P; Sterne JA
    Biostatistics; 2007 Apr; 8(2):239-51. PubMed ID: 16698768
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A D-vine copula mixed model for joint meta-analysis and comparison of diagnostic tests.
    Nikoloulopoulos AK
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2019; 28(10-11):3286-3300. PubMed ID: 30255733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.