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 *

167 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23840479)

  • 1. Why selective publication of statistically significant results can be effective.
    de Winter J; Happee R
    PLoS One; 2013; 8(6):e66463. PubMed ID: 23840479
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Why publishing everything is more effective than selective publishing of statistically significant results.
    van Assen MA; van Aert RC; Nuijten MB; Wicherts JM
    PLoS One; 2014; 9(1):e84896. PubMed ID: 24465448
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. fiddle: a tool to combat publication bias by getting research out of the file drawer and into the scientific community.
    Bernard R; Weissgerber TL; Bobrov E; Winham SJ; Dirnagl U; Riedel N
    Clin Sci (Lond); 2020 Oct; 134(20):2729-2739. PubMed ID: 33111948
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Publication bias impacts on effect size, statistical power, and magnitude (Type M) and sign (Type S) errors in ecology and evolutionary biology.
    Yang Y; Sánchez-Tójar A; O'Dea RE; Noble DWA; Koricheva J; Jennions MD; Parker TH; Lagisz M; Nakagawa S
    BMC Biol; 2023 Apr; 21(1):71. PubMed ID: 37013585
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. p-Hacking and publication bias interact to distort meta-analytic effect size estimates.
    Friese M; Frankenbach J
    Psychol Methods; 2020 Aug; 25(4):456-471. PubMed ID: 31789538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Publication bias in meta-analysis: its causes and consequences.
    Thornton A; Lee P
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2000 Feb; 53(2):207-16. PubMed ID: 10729693
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 99% impossible: A valid, or falsifiable, internal meta-analysis.
    Vosgerau J; Simonsohn U; Nelson LD; Simmons JP
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2019 Sep; 148(9):1628-1639. PubMed ID: 31464485
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The incentive to publish negative studies: how beta-blockers and depression got stuck in the publication cycle.
    Luijendijk HJ; Koolman X
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2012 May; 65(5):488-92. PubMed ID: 22342262
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Estimating the proportion of studies missing for meta-analysis due to publication bias.
    Formann AK
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2008 Sep; 29(5):732-9. PubMed ID: 18586577
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Assessing robustness against potential publication bias in Activation Likelihood Estimation (ALE) meta-analyses for fMRI.
    Acar F; Seurinck R; Eickhoff SB; Moerkerke B
    PLoS One; 2018; 13(11):e0208177. PubMed ID: 30500854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A kinked meta-regression model for publication bias correction.
    Bom PRD; Rachinger H
    Res Synth Methods; 2019 Dec; 10(4):497-514. PubMed ID: 31039283
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Rules to be adopted for publishing a scientific paper.
    Picardi N
    Ann Ital Chir; 2016; 87():1-3. PubMed ID: 28474609
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Publication bias in research synthesis: sensitivity analysis using a priori weight functions.
    Vevea JL; Woods CM
    Psychol Methods; 2005 Dec; 10(4):428-43. PubMed ID: 16392998
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. p-Curve and Effect Size: Correcting for Publication Bias Using Only Significant Results.
    Simonsohn U; Nelson LD; Simmons JP
    Perspect Psychol Sci; 2014 Nov; 9(6):666-81. PubMed ID: 26186117
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [Publication bias--the Achilles' heel of medical research].
    Luoto R
    Duodecim; 2012; 128(5):489-96. PubMed ID: 22486064
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Social science. Publication bias in the social sciences: unlocking the file drawer.
    Franco A; Malhotra N; Simonovits G
    Science; 2014 Sep; 345(6203):1502-5. PubMed ID: 25170047
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Meta-analysis and publication bias: How well does the FAT-PET-PEESE procedure work?
    Alinaghi N; Reed WR
    Res Synth Methods; 2018 Jun; 9(2):285-311. PubMed ID: 29532634
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Factors influencing successful peer-reviewed publication of original research presentations from the American Society of Pediatric Otolaryngology (ASPO).
    MacKinney EC; Chun RH; Cassidy LD; Link TR; Sulman CG; Kerschner JE
    Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol; 2015 Mar; 79(3):392-7. PubMed ID: 25604259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Positive reasons for publishing negative findings.
    Connor JT
    Am J Gastroenterol; 2008 Sep; 103(9):2181-3. PubMed ID: 18671812
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review.
    Teixeira da Silva JA; Dobránszki J
    Account Res; 2015; 22(1):22-40. PubMed ID: 25275622
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.