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 *

240 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24727843)

  • 1. Random-effects meta-analysis of inconsistent effects: a time for change.
    Cornell JE; Mulrow CD; Localio R; Stack CB; Meibohm AR; Guallar E; Goodman SN
    Ann Intern Med; 2014 Feb; 160(4):267-70. PubMed ID: 24727843
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Appropriateness of conducting and reporting random-effects meta-analysis in oncology.
    Ren J; Ma J; Cappelleri JC
    Res Synth Methods; 2024 Mar; 15(2):326-331. PubMed ID: 38219287
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparison of statistical inferences from the DerSimonian-Laird and alternative random-effects model meta-analyses - an empirical assessment of 920 Cochrane primary outcome meta-analyses.
    Thorlund K; Wetterslev J; Awad T; Thabane L; Gluud C
    Res Synth Methods; 2011 Dec; 2(4):238-53. PubMed ID: 26061888
    [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. A note on variance estimation in random effects meta-regression.
    Sidik K; Jonkman JN
    J Biopharm Stat; 2005; 15(5):823-38. PubMed ID: 16078388
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Meta-analysis of heterogeneous clinical trials: an empirical example.
    Doi SA; Barendregt JJ; Mozurkewich EL
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2011 Mar; 32(2):288-98. PubMed ID: 21147265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. A simple confidence interval for meta-analysis.
    Sidik K; Jonkman JN
    Stat Med; 2002 Nov; 21(21):3153-9. PubMed ID: 12375296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman approach and its modification for random-effects meta-analysis with few studies.
    Röver C; Knapp G; Friede T
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2015 Nov; 15():99. PubMed ID: 26573817
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [The practice of systematic reviews. V. Heterogeneity between studies and subgroup analysis].
    Scholten RJ; Assendelft WJ; Kostense PJ; Bouter LM
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1999 Apr; 143(16):843-8. PubMed ID: 10347653
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [The practice of systematic reviews. IV. Pooling results from separate studies].
    Scholten RJ; Kostense PJ; Assendelft WJ; Bouter LM
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1999 Apr; 143(15):786-91. PubMed ID: 10347641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Selecting the best meta-analytic estimator for evidence-based practice: a simulation study.
    Doi SAR; Furuya-Kanamori L
    Int J Evid Based Healthc; 2020 Mar; 18(1):86-94. PubMed ID: 31764215
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A simple method for inference on an overall effect in meta-analysis.
    Brockwell SE; Gordon IR
    Stat Med; 2007 Nov; 26(25):4531-43. PubMed ID: 17397112
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Meta-analysis of effect sizes reported at multiple time points: a multivariate approach.
    Trikalinos TA; Olkin I
    Clin Trials; 2012 Oct; 9(5):610-20. PubMed ID: 22872546
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in combining results of studies.
    Sidik K; Jonkman JN
    Stat Med; 2007 Apr; 26(9):1964-81. PubMed ID: 16955539
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.