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 *

419 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24317521)

  • 1. A simplification and implementation of random-effects meta-analyses based on the exact distribution of Cochran's Q.
    Preuß M; Ziegler A
    Methods Inf Med; 2014; 53(1):54-61. PubMed ID: 24317521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Misunderstandings about Q and 'Cochran's Q test' in meta-analysis.
    Hoaglin DC
    Stat Med; 2016 Feb; 35(4):485-95. PubMed ID: 26303773
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. On the Q statistic with constant weights for standardized mean difference.
    Bakbergenuly I; Hoaglin DC; Kulinskaya E
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2022 Nov; 75(3):444-465. PubMed ID: 35094381
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Incorporating variability in estimates of heterogeneity in the random effects model in meta-analysis.
    Biggerstaff BJ; Tweedie RL
    Stat Med; 1997 Apr; 16(7):753-68. PubMed ID: 9131763
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Confidence intervals for the between-study variance in random effects meta-analysis using generalised Cochran heterogeneity statistics.
    Jackson D
    Res Synth Methods; 2013 Sep; 4(3):220-9. PubMed ID: 26053842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The exact distribution of Cochran's heterogeneity statistic in one-way random effects meta-analysis.
    Biggerstaff BJ; Jackson D
    Stat Med; 2008 Dec; 27(29):6093-110. PubMed ID: 18781561
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Methods for estimating between-study variance and overall effect in meta-analysis of odds ratios.
    Bakbergenuly I; Hoaglin DC; Kulinskaya E
    Res Synth Methods; 2020 May; 11(3):426-442. PubMed ID: 32112619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Estimation in meta-analyses of mean difference and standardized mean difference.
    Bakbergenuly I; Hoaglin DC; Kulinskaya E
    Stat Med; 2020 Jan; 39(2):171-191. PubMed ID: 31709582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A Q statistic with constant weights for assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis.
    Kulinskaya E; Hoaglin DC; Bakbergenuly I; Newman J
    Res Synth Methods; 2021 Nov; 12(6):711-730. PubMed ID: 33969638
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. [Meta-analysis of the Italian studies on short-term effects of air pollution].
    Biggeri A; Bellini P; Terracini B;
    Epidemiol Prev; 2001; 25(2 Suppl):1-71. PubMed ID: 11515188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in simulated random-effects meta-analyses.
    Langan D; Higgins JPT; Jackson D; Bowden J; Veroniki AA; Kontopantelis E; Viechtbauer W; Simmonds M
    Res Synth Methods; 2019 Mar; 10(1):83-98. PubMed ID: 30067315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Cochran's Q test was useful to assess heterogeneity in likelihood ratios in studies of diagnostic accuracy.
    Cohen JF; Chalumeau M; Cohen R; Korevaar DA; Khoshnood B; Bossuyt PM
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 Mar; 68(3):299-306. PubMed ID: 25441698
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. An accurate test for homogeneity of odds ratios based on Cochran's Q-statistic.
    Kulinskaya E; Dollinger MB
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2015 Jun; 15():49. PubMed ID: 26054650
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Likelihood-based random-effects meta-analysis with few studies: empirical and simulation studies.
    Seide SE; Röver C; Friede T
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Jan; 19(1):16. PubMed ID: 30634920
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Critical interpretation of Cochran's Q test depends on power and prior assumptions about heterogeneity.
    Pereira TV; Patsopoulos NA; Salanti G; Ioannidis JP
    Res Synth Methods; 2010 Apr; 1(2):149-61. PubMed ID: 26061380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Multivariate meta-analysis: a robust approach based on the theory of U-statistic.
    Ma Y; Mazumdar M
    Stat Med; 2011 Oct; 30(24):2911-29. PubMed ID: 21830230
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The binomial distribution of meta-analysis was preferred to model within-study variability.
    Hamza TH; van Houwelingen HC; Stijnen T
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Jan; 61(1):41-51. PubMed ID: 18083461
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Classical and Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis models with sample quality weights in gene expression studies.
    Siangphoe U; Archer KJ; Mukhopadhyay ND
    BMC Bioinformatics; 2019 Jan; 20(1):18. PubMed ID: 30626315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Considerations for pooling real-world data as a comparator cohort to a single arm trial: a simulation study on assessment of heterogeneity.
    Backenroth D; Royce T; Pinheiro J; Samant M; Humblet O
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2023 Aug; 23(1):193. PubMed ID: 37620758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. On the Q statistic with constant weights in meta-analysis of binary outcomes.
    Kulinskaya E; Hoaglin DC
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2023 Jun; 23(1):146. PubMed ID: 37344771
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 21.