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 *

97 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24447592)

  • 41. Future of Evidence Ecosystem Series: Evidence ecosystems and learning health systems: why bother?
    Vandvik PO; Brandt L
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2020 Jul; 123():166-170. PubMed ID: 32145365
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. The ecosystem of evidence cannot thrive without efficiency of knowledge generation, synthesis, and translation.
    Cartabellotta A; Tilson JK
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2019 Jun; 110():90-95. PubMed ID: 30708174
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. 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]  

  • 44. Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis.
    Gurevitch J; Koricheva J; Nakagawa S; Stewart G
    Nature; 2018 Mar; 555(7695):175-182. PubMed ID: 29517004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Meta-analysis using individual participant data: one-stage and two-stage approaches, and why they may differ.
    Burke DL; Ensor J; Riley RD
    Stat Med; 2017 Feb; 36(5):855-875. PubMed ID: 27747915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Meta-analysis at middle age: a personal history.
    Glass GV
    Res Synth Methods; 2015 Sep; 6(3):221-31. PubMed ID: 26355796
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Get real in individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis: a review of the methodology.
    Debray TP; Moons KG; van Valkenhoef G; Efthimiou O; Hummel N; Groenwold RH; Reitsma JB;
    Res Synth Methods; 2015 Dec; 6(4):293-309. PubMed ID: 26287812
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. The meta-analytic big bang.
    Shadish WR; Lecy JD
    Res Synth Methods; 2015 Sep; 6(3):246-64. PubMed ID: 26212600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. The early history of meta-analysis.
    Hedges LV
    Res Synth Methods; 2015 Sep; 6(3):284-6. PubMed ID: 26097046
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Automating network meta-analysis.
    van Valkenhoef G; Lu G; de Brock B; Hillege H; Ades AE; Welton NJ
    Res Synth Methods; 2012 Dec; 3(4):285-99. PubMed ID: 26053422
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Advances in the meta-analysis of heterogeneous clinical trials I: The inverse variance heterogeneity model.
    Doi SA; Barendregt JJ; Khan S; Thalib L; Williams GM
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2015 Nov; 45(Pt A):130-8. PubMed ID: 26003435
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Advances in the meta-analysis of heterogeneous clinical trials II: The quality effects model.
    Doi SA; Barendregt JJ; Khan S; Thalib L; Williams GM
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2015 Nov; 45(Pt A):123-9. PubMed ID: 26003432
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Simulation Comparison of the Quality Effects and Random Effects Methods of Meta-analysis.
    Doi SA; Barendregt JJ; Khan S; Thalib L; Williams GM
    Epidemiology; 2015 Jul; 26(4):e42-4. PubMed ID: 25872162
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. What is the test's accuracy in my practice population? Tailored meta-analysis provides a plausible estimate.
    Willis BH; Hyde CJ
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 Aug; 68(8):847-54. PubMed ID: 25479685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
    Bucher HC; Guyatt GH; Griffith LE; Walter SD
    J Clin Epidemiol; 1997 Jun; 50(6):683-91. PubMed ID: 9250266
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Meta-analysis: statistical alchemy for the 21st century.
    Feinstein AR
    J Clin Epidemiol; 1995 Jan; 48(1):71-9. PubMed ID: 7853050
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Comparing outcomes from tailored meta-analysis with outcomes from a setting specific test accuracy study using routine data of faecal calprotectin testing for inflammatory bowel disease.
    Freeman K; Willis BH; Ryan R; Taylor-Phillips S; Clarke A
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2022 Jul; 22(1):192. PubMed ID: 35820893
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. On estimating a constrained bivariate random effects model for meta-analysis of test accuracy studies.
    Baragilly M; Willis BH
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2022 Feb; 31(2):287-299. PubMed ID: 34994667
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Comparison of Centor and McIsaac scores in primary care: a meta-analysis over multiple thresholds.
    Willis BH; Coomar D; Baragilly M
    Br J Gen Pract; 2020 Apr; 70(693):e245-e254. PubMed ID: 32152041
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Maximum likelihood estimation based on Newton-Raphson iteration for the bivariate random effects model in test accuracy meta-analysis.
    Willis BH; Baragilly M; Coomar D
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2020 Apr; 29(4):1197-1211. PubMed ID: 31184270
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.