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 *

72 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24621329)

  • 1. Risk of bias reporting in Cochrane systematic reviews.
    Hopp L
    Int J Nurs Pract; 2015 Oct; 21(5):683-6. PubMed ID: 24621329
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Systematic reviews incorporating evidence from nonrandomized study designs: reasons for caution when estimating health effects.
    Reeves BC; van Binsbergen J; van Weel C
    Eur J Clin Nutr; 2005 Aug; 59 Suppl 1():S155-61. PubMed ID: 16052184
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Methodological quality of systematic reviews in subfertility: a comparison of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in assisted reproductive technologies.
    Windsor B; Popovich I; Jordan V; Showell M; Shea B; Farquhar C
    Hum Reprod; 2012 Dec; 27(12):3460-6. PubMed ID: 23034152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Critical appraisal of studies using laboratory animal models.
    O'Connor AM; Sargeant JM
    ILAR J; 2014; 55(3):405-17. PubMed ID: 25541543
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A meta-epidemiological study to examine the association between bias and treatment effects in neonatal trials.
    Bialy L; Vandermeer B; Lacaze-Masmonteil T; Dryden DM; Hartling L
    Evid Based Child Health; 2014 Dec; 9(4):1052-9. PubMed ID: 25504975
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Assessment of study quality for systematic reviews: a comparison of the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool: methodological research.
    Armijo-Olivo S; Stiles CR; Hagen NA; Biondo PD; Cummings GG
    J Eval Clin Pract; 2012 Feb; 18(1):12-8. PubMed ID: 20698919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Inclusion criteria for outcomes of studies not clearly reported in Cochrane systematic reviews.
    Verbeek J; Ijaz S; Mischke C
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2017 Jul; 87():98-106. PubMed ID: 28478083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Can trial quality be reliably assessed from published reports of cancer trials: evaluation of risk of bias assessments in systematic reviews.
    Vale CL; Tierney JF; Burdett S
    BMJ; 2013 Apr; 346():f1798. PubMed ID: 23610376
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews.
    Moher D; Tetzlaff J; Tricco AC; Sampson M; Altman DG
    PLoS Med; 2007 Mar; 4(3):e78. PubMed ID: 17388659
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Use of quality assessment tools in systematic reviews was varied and inconsistent.
    Seehra J; Pandis N; Koletsi D; Fleming PS
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2016 Jan; 69():179-84.e5. PubMed ID: 26151664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Considerations from the risk of bias perspective for updating Cochrane reviews.
    Mayhew AD; Kabir M; Ansari MT
    Syst Rev; 2015 Oct; 4():136. PubMed ID: 26445323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Cochrane Skin Group systematic reviews are more methodologically rigorous than other systematic reviews in dermatology.
    Collier A; Heilig L; Schilling L; Williams H; Dellavalle RP
    Br J Dermatol; 2006 Dec; 155(6):1230-5. PubMed ID: 17107394
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Systematic reviews showed insufficient evidence for clinical practice in 2004: what about in 2011? The next appeal for the evidence-based medicine age.
    Villas Boas PJ; Spagnuolo RS; Kamegasawa A; Braz LG; Polachini do Valle A; Jorge EC; Yoo HH; Cataneo AJ; Corrêa I; Fukushima FB; do Nascimento P; Módolo NS; Teixeira MS; de Oliveira Vidal EI; Daher SR; El Dib R
    J Eval Clin Pract; 2013 Aug; 19(4):633-7. PubMed ID: 22747638
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Systematic reviews involving complementary and alternative medicine interventions had higher quality of reporting than conventional medicine reviews.
    Lawson ML; Pham B; Klassen TP; Moher D
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2005 Aug; 58(8):777-84. PubMed ID: 16018912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Methodological quality of systematic reviews on influenza vaccination.
    Remschmidt C; Wichmann O; Harder T
    Vaccine; 2014 Mar; 32(15):1678-84. PubMed ID: 24513008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. When to include clinical study reports and regulatory documents in systematic reviews.
    Jefferson T; Doshi P; Boutron I; Golder S; Heneghan C; Hodkinson A; Jones M; Lefebvre C; Stewart LA
    BMJ Evid Based Med; 2018 Dec; 23(6):210-217. PubMed ID: 30309870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Bias because of selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomized trials of healthcare interventions.
    Redulla R
    Int J Evid Based Healthc; 2016 Dec; 14(4):183-185. PubMed ID: 27471792
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [Risk of bias assessment: (1) overview].
    Yang ZR; Sun F; Zhan SY
    Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi; 2017 Jul; 38(7):983-987. PubMed ID: 28738479
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.