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 *

185 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25196829)

  • 1. Methods for calculating confidence and credible intervals for the residual between-study variance in random effects meta-regression models.
    Jackson D; Turner R; Rhodes K; Viechtbauer W
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2014 Sep; 14():103. PubMed ID: 25196829
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Confidence intervals for the between-study variance in random-effects meta-analysis using generalised heterogeneity statistics: should we use unequal tails?
    Jackson D; Bowden J
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2016 Sep; 16(1):118. PubMed ID: 27604952
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. [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]  

  • 4. Modelling heterogeneity variances in multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis--are informative priors the better solution?
    Thorlund K; Thabane L; Mills EJ
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2013 Jan; 13():2. PubMed ID: 23311298
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Approximate confidence intervals for moment-based estimators of the between-study variance in random effects meta-analysis.
    Jackson D; Bowden J; Baker R
    Res Synth Methods; 2015 Dec; 6(4):372-82. PubMed ID: 26287958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Confidence intervals for the between-study variance in random effects meta-analysis using generalised Cochran heterogeneity statistics.
    Jackson D
    Res Synth Methods; 2013 Sep; 4(3):220-9. PubMed ID: 26053842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Two new methods to fit models for network meta-analysis with random inconsistency effects.
    Law M; Jackson D; Turner R; Rhodes K; Viechtbauer W
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2016 Jul; 16():87. PubMed ID: 27465416
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Methods to estimate the between-study variance and its uncertainty in meta-analysis.
    Veroniki AA; Jackson D; Viechtbauer W; Bender R; Bowden J; Knapp G; Kuss O; Higgins JP; Langan D; Salanti G
    Res Synth Methods; 2016 Mar; 7(1):55-79. PubMed ID: 26332144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Bayesian Methods for Meta-Analyses of Binary Outcomes: Implementations, Examples, and Impact of Priors.
    Al Amer FM; Thompson CG; Lin L
    Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2021 Mar; 18(7):. PubMed ID: 33801771
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Statistical properties of methods based on the Q-statistic for constructing a confidence interval for the between-study variance in meta-analysis.
    van Aert RCM; van Assen MALM; Viechtbauer W
    Res Synth Methods; 2019 Jun; 10(2):225-239. PubMed ID: 30589219
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A comparison of Bayesian and frequentist methods in random-effects network meta-analysis of binary data.
    Seide SE; Jensen K; Kieser M
    Res Synth Methods; 2020 May; 11(3):363-378. PubMed ID: 31955519
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Logistic random effects regression models: a comparison of statistical packages for binary and ordinal outcomes.
    Li B; Lingsma HF; Steyerberg EW; Lesaffre E
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2011 May; 11():77. PubMed ID: 21605357
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Bayesian estimation in random effects meta-analysis using a non-informative prior.
    Bodnar O; Link A; Arendacká B; Possolo A; Elster C
    Stat Med; 2017 Jan; 36(2):378-399. PubMed ID: 27790722
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Frequentist performances of Bayesian prediction intervals for random-effects meta-analysis.
    Hamaguchi Y; Noma H; Nagashima K; Yamada T; Furukawa TA
    Biom J; 2021 Feb; 63(2):394-405. PubMed ID: 33164247
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Problematic meta-analyses: Bayesian and frequentist perspectives on combining randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies.
    Moran JL; Linden A
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2024 Apr; 24(1):99. PubMed ID: 38678213
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Bayesian hypothesis testing and estimation under the marginalized random-effects meta-analysis model.
    van Aert RCM; Mulder J
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2022 Feb; 29(1):55-69. PubMed ID: 34159526
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Using structural equation modeling for network meta-analysis.
    Tu YK; Wu YC
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Jul; 17(1):104. PubMed ID: 28709406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Prior Choices of Between-Study Heterogeneity in Contemporary Bayesian Network Meta-analyses: an Empirical Study.
    Rosenberger KJ; Xing A; Murad MH; Chu H; Lin L
    J Gen Intern Med; 2021 Apr; 36(4):1049-1057. PubMed ID: 33403620
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Implementing informative priors for heterogeneity in meta-analysis using meta-regression and pseudo data.
    Rhodes KM; Turner RM; White IR; Jackson D; Spiegelhalter DJ; Higgins JP
    Stat Med; 2016 Dec; 35(29):5495-5511. PubMed ID: 27577523
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.
    Crider K; Williams J; Qi YP; Gutman J; Yeung L; Mai C; Finkelstain J; Mehta S; Pons-Duran C; Menéndez C; Moraleda C; Rogers L; Daniels K; Green P
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2022 Feb; 2(2022):. PubMed ID: 36321557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.