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 *

137 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24321246)

  • 41. Meta-analysis of well-designed nonrandomized comparative studies of surgical procedures is as good as randomized controlled trials.
    Abraham NS; Byrne CJ; Young JM; Solomon MJ
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2010 Mar; 63(3):238-45. PubMed ID: 19716267
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Inclusion of zero total event trials in meta-analyses maintains analytic consistency and incorporates all available data.
    Friedrich JO; Adhikari NK; Beyene J
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2007 Jan; 7():5. PubMed ID: 17244367
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Meta-analysis methodology for combining treatment effects from Cox proportional hazard models with different covariate adjustments.
    Yuan X; Anderson SJ
    Biom J; 2010 Aug; 52(4):519-37. PubMed ID: 20661952
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Small sample adjustments for robust variance estimation with meta-regression.
    Tipton E
    Psychol Methods; 2015 Sep; 20(3):375-93. PubMed ID: 24773356
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Confidence intervals for a random-effects meta-analysis based on Bartlett-type corrections.
    Noma H
    Stat Med; 2011 Dec; 30(28):3304-12. PubMed ID: 21964669
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Improved Fisher z estimators for univariate random-effects meta-analysis of correlations.
    Hafdahl AR
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2009 May; 62(Pt 2):233-61. PubMed ID: 18257972
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Applying the law of iterated logarithm to control type I error in cumulative meta-analysis of binary outcomes.
    Hu M; Cappelleri JC; Lan KK
    Clin Trials; 2007; 4(4):329-40. PubMed ID: 17848494
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. A methodological review of recent meta-analyses has found significant heterogeneity in age between randomized groups.
    Clark L; Fairhurst C; Hewitt CE; Birks Y; Brabyn S; Cockayne S; Rodgers S; Hicks K; Hodgson R; Littlewood E; Torgerson DJ
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2014 Sep; 67(9):1016-24. PubMed ID: 24909873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. A new and rapid scoring system to assess the scientific evidence from clinical trials.
    Silber S
    J Interv Cardiol; 2006 Dec; 19(6):485-92. PubMed ID: 17107362
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Assessing the impact of attrition in randomized controlled trials.
    Hewitt CE; Kumaravel B; Dumville JC; Torgerson DJ;
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2010 Nov; 63(11):1264-70. PubMed ID: 20573482
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Ratio of geometric means to analyze continuous outcomes in meta-analysis: comparison to mean differences and ratio of arithmetic means using empiric data and simulation.
    Friedrich JO; Adhikari NK; Beyene J
    Stat Med; 2012 Jul; 31(17):1857-86. PubMed ID: 22438170
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. A meta-regression analysis shows no impact of design characteristics on outcome in trials on tension-type headaches.
    Verhagen AP; de Vet HC; Willemsen S; Stijnen T
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Aug; 61(8):813-8. PubMed ID: 18359608
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: part 6. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies.
    Manchikanti L; Datta S; Smith HS; Hirsch JA
    Pain Physician; 2009; 12(5):819-50. PubMed ID: 19787009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. 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]  

  • 55. Sparse meta-analysis with high-dimensional data.
    He Q; Zhang HH; Avery CL; Lin DY
    Biostatistics; 2016 Apr; 17(2):205-20. PubMed ID: 26395907
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Meta-analysis without study-specific variance information: Heterogeneity case.
    Sangnawakij P; Böhning D; Niwitpong SA; Adams S; Stanton M; Holling H
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2019 Jan; 28(1):196-210. PubMed ID: 28681700
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Inference for the median residual life function in sequential multiple assignment randomized trials.
    Kidwell KM; Ko JH; Wahed AS
    Stat Med; 2014 Apr; 33(9):1503-13. PubMed ID: 24254496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Data-generating models of dichotomous outcomes: Heterogeneity in simulation studies for a random-effects meta-analysis.
    Pateras K; Nikolakopoulos S; Roes K
    Stat Med; 2018 Mar; 37(7):1115-1124. PubMed ID: 29230852
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. On the Relation Between G-formula and Inverse Probability Weighting Estimators for Generalizing Trial Results.
    Dahabreh IJ; Robertson SE; Hernán MA
    Epidemiology; 2019 Nov; 30(6):807-812. PubMed ID: 31517670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Adjusting for bias in unblinded randomized controlled trials.
    Schmidt AF; Groenwold R
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2018 Aug; 27(8):2413-2427. PubMed ID: 27932664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.