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 *

208 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25393541)

  • 1. Allowing for uncertainty due to missing continuous outcome data in pairwise and network meta-analysis.
    Mavridis D; White IR; Higgins JP; Cipriani A; Salanti G
    Stat Med; 2015 Feb; 34(5):721-41. PubMed ID: 25393541
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Allowing for uncertainty due to missing data in meta-analysis--part 2: hierarchical models.
    White IR; Welton NJ; Wood AM; Ades AE; Higgins JP
    Stat Med; 2008 Feb; 27(5):728-45. PubMed ID: 17703502
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Allowing for uncertainty due to missing and LOCF imputed outcomes in meta-analysis.
    Mavridis D; Salanti G; Furukawa TA; Cipriani A; Chaimani A; White IR
    Stat Med; 2019 Feb; 38(5):720-737. PubMed ID: 30347460
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Allowing for uncertainty due to missing data in meta-analysis--part 1: two-stage methods.
    White IR; Higgins JP; Wood AM
    Stat Med; 2008 Feb; 27(5):711-27. PubMed ID: 17703496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Evaluating the impact of imputations for missing participant outcome data in a network meta-analysis.
    Spineli LM; Higgins JP; Cipriani A; Leucht S; Salanti G
    Clin Trials; 2013; 10(3):378-88. PubMed ID: 23321265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Allowing for informative missingness in aggregate data meta-analysis with continuous or binary outcomes: Extensions to metamiss.
    Chaimani A; Mavridis D; Higgins JPT; Salanti G; White IR
    Stata J; 2018 Jul; 18(3):716-740. PubMed ID: 30595674
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Imputation methods for missing outcome data in meta-analysis of clinical trials.
    Higgins JP; White IR; Wood AM
    Clin Trials; 2008; 5(3):225-39. PubMed ID: 18559412
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Accounting for uncertainty due to 'last observation carried forward' outcome imputation in a meta-analysis model.
    Dimitrakopoulou V; Efthimiou O; Leucht S; Salanti G
    Stat Med; 2015 Feb; 34(5):742-52. PubMed ID: 25492741
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Dealing with missing outcome data in meta-analysis.
    Mavridis D; White IR
    Res Synth Methods; 2020 Jan; 11(1):2-13. PubMed ID: 30991455
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A Bayesian framework to account for uncertainty due to missing binary outcome data in pairwise meta-analysis.
    Turner NL; Dias S; Ades AE; Welton NJ
    Stat Med; 2015 May; 34(12):2062-80. PubMed ID: 25809313
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Continuous(ly) missing outcome data in network meta-analysis: A one-stage pattern-mixture model approach.
    Spineli LM; Kalyvas C; Papadimitropoulou K
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2021 Apr; 30(4):958-975. PubMed ID: 33406990
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Handling trial participants with missing outcome data when conducting a meta-analysis: a systematic survey of proposed approaches.
    Akl EA; Kahale LA; Agoritsas T; Brignardello-Petersen R; Busse JW; Carrasco-Labra A; Ebrahim S; Johnston BC; Neumann I; Sola I; Sun X; Vandvik P; Zhang Y; Alonso-Coello P; Guyatt G
    Syst Rev; 2015 Jul; 4():98. PubMed ID: 26202162
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A note on dealing with missing standard errors in meta-analyses of continuous outcome measures in WinBUGS.
    Stevens JW
    Pharm Stat; 2011; 10(4):374-8. PubMed ID: 21394888
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Imputation strategies for missing binary outcomes in cluster randomized trials.
    Ma J; Akhtar-Danesh N; Dolovich L; Thabane L;
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2011 Feb; 11():18. PubMed ID: 21324148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A pattern-mixture model with nonfuture dependence and shift in current missing values.
    Lu K; Chen C; Li D
    J Biopharm Stat; 2015; 25(3):548-69. PubMed ID: 24905193
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Is using multiple imputation better than complete case analysis for estimating a prevalence (risk) difference in randomized controlled trials when binary outcome observations are missing?
    Mukaka M; White SA; Terlouw DJ; Mwapasa V; Kalilani-Phiri L; Faragher EB
    Trials; 2016 Jul; 17():341. PubMed ID: 27450066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. An empirical comparison of Bayesian modelling strategies for missing binary outcome data in network meta-analysis.
    Spineli LM
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Apr; 19(1):86. PubMed ID: 31018836
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Bayesian hierarchical models for network meta-analysis incorporating nonignorable missingness.
    Zhang J; Chu H; Hong H; Virnig BA; Carlin BP
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2017 Oct; 26(5):2227-2243. PubMed ID: 26220535
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison of exclusion, imputation and modelling of missing binary outcome data in frequentist network meta-analysis.
    Spineli LM; Kalyvas C
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2020 Feb; 20(1):48. PubMed ID: 32111167
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.