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 *

147 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24321246)

  • 21. Statistics for quantifying heterogeneity in univariate and bivariate meta-analyses of binary data: the case of meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy.
    Zhou Y; Dendukuri N
    Stat Med; 2014 Jul; 33(16):2701-17. PubMed ID: 24903142
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. Interval estimation of the overall treatment effect in random-effects meta-analyses: Recommendations from a simulation study comparing frequentist, Bayesian, and bootstrap methods.
    Weber F; Knapp G; Glass Ä; Kundt G; Ickstadt K
    Res Synth Methods; 2021 May; 12(3):291-315. PubMed ID: 33264488
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Heterogeneity estimation in meta-analysis of standardized mean differences when the distribution of random effects departs from normal: A Monte Carlo simulation study.
    Blázquez-Rincón D; Sánchez-Meca J; Botella J; Suero M
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2023 Jan; 23(1):19. PubMed ID: 36650428
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. A simple hybrid variance estimator for the Kaplan-Meier survival function.
    Borkowf CB
    Stat Med; 2005 Mar; 24(6):827-51. PubMed ID: 15558837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Treatment-effect estimates adjusted for small-study effects via a limit meta-analysis.
    Rücker G; Schwarzer G; Carpenter JR; Binder H; Schumacher M
    Biostatistics; 2011 Jan; 12(1):122-42. PubMed ID: 20656692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Confidence intervals for random effects meta-analysis and robustness to publication bias.
    Henmi M; Copas JB
    Stat Med; 2010 Dec; 29(29):2969-83. PubMed ID: 20963748
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. What to add to nothing? Use and avoidance of continuity corrections in meta-analysis of sparse data.
    Sweeting MJ; Sutton AJ; Lambert PC
    Stat Med; 2004 May; 23(9):1351-75. PubMed ID: 15116347
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Do statistical heterogeneity methods impact the results of meta- analyses? A meta epidemiological study.
    Mheissen S; Khan H; Normando D; Vaiid N; Flores-Mir C
    PLoS One; 2024; 19(3):e0298526. PubMed ID: 38502662
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Trial sequential analyses of meta-analyses of complications in laparoscopic vs. small-incision cholecystectomy: more randomized patients are needed.
    Keus F; Wetterslev J; Gluud C; Gooszen HG; van Laarhoven CJ
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2010 Mar; 63(3):246-56. PubMed ID: 20004553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Meta-analysis combining parallel and cross-over clinical trials. III: The issue of carry-over.
    Curtin F; Elbourne D; Altman DG
    Stat Med; 2002 Aug; 21(15):2161-73. PubMed ID: 12210631
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Comparison of variance estimators for meta-analysis of instrumental variable estimates.
    Schmidt AF; Hingorani AD; Jefferis BJ; White J; Groenwold R; Dudbridge F;
    Int J Epidemiol; 2016 Dec; 45(6):1975-1986. PubMed ID: 27591262
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Quantifying uncertainty in method of moments estimates of the heterogeneity variance in random effects meta-analysis.
    Sidik K; Jonkman JN
    Biom J; 2022 Mar; 64(3):598-616. PubMed ID: 35285063
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Comparison of one-step and two-step meta-analysis models using individual patient data.
    Mathew T; Nordström K
    Biom J; 2010 Apr; 52(2):271-87. PubMed ID: 20349448
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Improved tests for a random effects meta-regression with a single covariate.
    Knapp G; Hartung J
    Stat Med; 2003 Sep; 22(17):2693-710. PubMed ID: 12939780
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Robustness assessments are needed to reduce bias in meta-analyses that include zero-event randomized trials.
    Keus F; Wetterslev J; Gluud C; Gooszen HG; van Laarhoven CJ
    Am J Gastroenterol; 2009 Mar; 104(3):546-51. PubMed ID: 19262513
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Impact of analysing continuous outcomes using final values, change scores and analysis of covariance on the performance of meta-analytic methods: a simulation study.
    McKenzie JE; Herbison GP; Deeks JJ
    Res Synth Methods; 2016 Dec; 7(4):371-386. PubMed ID: 26715122
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Trial sequential methods for meta-analysis.
    Kulinskaya E; Wood J
    Res Synth Methods; 2014 Sep; 5(3):212-20. PubMed ID: 26052847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. A new measure of between-studies heterogeneity in meta-analysis.
    Crippa A; Khudyakov P; Wang M; Orsini N; Spiegelman D
    Stat Med; 2016 Sep; 35(21):3661-75. PubMed ID: 27161124
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Early extreme contradictory estimates may appear in published research: the Proteus phenomenon in molecular genetics research and randomized trials.
    Ioannidis JP; Trikalinos TA
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2005 Jun; 58(6):543-9. PubMed ID: 15878467
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.