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 *

260 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24692250)

  • 1. Demystifying fixed and random effects meta-analysis.
    Nikolakopoulou A; Mavridis D; Salanti G
    Evid Based Ment Health; 2014 May; 17(2):53-7. PubMed ID: 24692250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Meta-analysis for orthodontists: Part I--How to choose effect measure and statistical model.
    Papageorgiou SN
    J Orthod; 2014 Dec; 41(4):317-26. PubMed ID: 25404668
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Fixed- versus random-effects models in meta-analysis: model properties and an empirical comparison of differences in results.
    Schmidt FL; Oh IS; Hayes TL
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2009 Feb; 62(Pt 1):97-128. PubMed ID: 18001516
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. [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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Bivariate random effects meta-analysis of ROC curves.
    Arends LR; Hamza TH; van Houwelingen JC; Heijenbrok-Kal MH; Hunink MG; Stijnen T
    Med Decis Making; 2008; 28(5):621-38. PubMed ID: 18591542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Synthesizer 1.0: a varying-coefficient meta-analytic tool.
    Krizan Z
    Behav Res Methods; 2010 Aug; 42(3):863-70. PubMed ID: 20805608
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Meta-analytic interval estimation for standardized and unstandardized mean differences.
    Bonett DG
    Psychol Methods; 2009 Sep; 14(3):225-38. PubMed ID: 19719359
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Empirical Bayes estimates generated in a hierarchical summary ROC analysis agreed closely with those of a full Bayesian analysis.
    Macaskill P
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2004 Sep; 57(9):925-32. PubMed ID: 15504635
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Addressing missing outcome data in meta-analysis.
    Mavridis D; Chaimani A; Efthimiou O; Leucht S; Salanti G
    Evid Based Ment Health; 2014 Aug; 17(3):85-9. PubMed ID: 25009175
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Meta-analysis of randomised trials with a continuous outcome according to baseline imbalance and availability of individual participant data.
    Riley RD; Kauser I; Bland M; Thijs L; Staessen JA; Wang J; Gueyffier F; Deeks JJ
    Stat Med; 2013 Jul; 32(16):2747-66. PubMed ID: 23303608
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Invited review: Integrating quantitative findings from multiple studies using mixed model methodology.
    St-Pierre NR
    J Dairy Sci; 2001 Apr; 84(4):741-55. PubMed ID: 11352149
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Assessing the sensitivity of meta-analysis to selection bias: a multiple imputation approach.
    Carpenter J; Rücker G; Schwarzer G
    Biometrics; 2011 Sep; 67(3):1066-72. PubMed ID: 21039395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. [Statistical analysis of community-based studies -- presentation and comparison of possible solutions with reference to statistical meta-analytic methods].
    Twardella D; Bruckner T; Blettner M
    Gesundheitswesen; 2005 Jan; 67(1):48-55. PubMed ID: 15672306
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Evaluation of underlying risk as a source of heterogeneity in meta-analyses: a simulation study of Bayesian and frequentist implementations of three models.
    Dohoo I; Stryhn H; Sanchez J
    Prev Vet Med; 2007 Sep; 81(1-3):38-55. PubMed ID: 17477995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Some recommended statistical analytic practices when reliability generalization studies are conducted.
    Sánchez-Meca J; López-López JA; López-Pina JA
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2013 Nov; 66(3):402-25. PubMed ID: 23046285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Accounting for heterogeneity in meta-analysis using a multiplicative model-an empirical study.
    Mawdsley D; Higgins JP; Sutton AJ; Abrams KR
    Res Synth Methods; 2017 Mar; 8(1):43-52. PubMed ID: 27259973
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A likelihood approach to meta-analysis with random effects.
    Hardy RJ; Thompson SG
    Stat Med; 1996 Mar; 15(6):619-29. PubMed ID: 8731004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Meta-analysis of individual patient data versus aggregate data from longitudinal clinical trials.
    Jones AP; Riley RD; Williamson PR; Whitehead A
    Clin Trials; 2009 Feb; 6(1):16-27. PubMed ID: 19254930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Robust meta-analytic conclusions mandate the provision of prediction intervals in meta-analysis summaries.
    Graham PL; Moran JL
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2012 May; 65(5):503-10. PubMed ID: 22265586
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.