199 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25433443)
1. Application of credibility ceilings probes the robustness of meta-analyses of biomarkers and cancer risk.
Papatheodorou SI; Tsilidis KK; Evangelou E; Ioannidis JP
J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 Feb; 68(2):163-74. PubMed ID: 25433443
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Synthesis of observational studies should consider credibility ceilings.
Salanti G; Ioannidis JP
J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Feb; 62(2):115-22. PubMed ID: 19131013
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Controversy and debate on credibility ceilings. Paper 1: Fundamental problems with the "credibility ceiling" method for meta-analyses.
Mathur MB; VanderWeele TJ
J Clin Epidemiol; 2020 Nov; 127():208-210. PubMed ID: 32450128
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Evaluation of excess statistical significance in meta-analyses of 98 biomarker associations with cancer risk.
Tsilidis KK; Papatheodorou SI; Evangelou E; Ioannidis JP
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2012 Dec; 104(24):1867-78. PubMed ID: 23090067
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Effect of formal statistical significance on the credibility of observational associations.
Ioannidis JP
Am J Epidemiol; 2008 Aug; 168(4):374-83; discussion 384-90. PubMed ID: 18611956
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Statistically significant meta-analyses of clinical trials have modest credibility and inflated effects.
Pereira TV; Ioannidis JP
J Clin Epidemiol; 2011 Oct; 64(10):1060-9. PubMed ID: 21454050
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Choice of effect measure for meta-analyses of dichotomous outcomes influenced the identified heterogeneity and direction of small-study effects.
Papageorgiou SN; Tsiranidou E; Antonoglou GN; Deschner J; Jäger A
J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 May; 68(5):534-41. PubMed ID: 25666885
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Controversy and debate on credibility ceilings. Paper 3: errors in the statistical justification for the "credibility ceiling" method remain uncorrected.
Mathur MB; VanderWeele TJ
J Clin Epidemiol; 2020 Nov; 127():214-216. PubMed ID: 32442482
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Heterogeneity and statistical significance in meta-analysis: an empirical study of 125 meta-analyses.
Engels EA; Schmid CH; Terrin N; Olkin I; Lau J
Stat Med; 2000 Jul; 19(13):1707-28. PubMed ID: 10861773
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Can statistic adjustment of OR minimize the potential confounding bias for meta-analysis of case-control study? A secondary data analysis.
Liu T; Nie X; Wu Z; Zhang Y; Feng G; Cai S; Lv Y; Peng X
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Dec; 17(1):179. PubMed ID: 29284414
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Robustness assessments are needed to reduce bias in meta-analyses that include zero-event randomized trials.
Keus F; Wetterslev J; Gluud C; Gooszen HG; van Laarhoven CJ
Am J Gastroenterol; 2009 Mar; 104(3):546-51. PubMed ID: 19262513
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Response to letter to the editor from Dr Rahman Shiri: The challenging topic of suicide across occupational groups.
Niedhammer I; Milner A; Witt K; Klingelschmidt J; Khireddine-Medouni I; Alexopoulos EC; Toivanen S; Chastang JF; LaMontagne AD
Scand J Work Environ Health; 2018 Jan; 44(1):108-110. PubMed ID: 29218357
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A simple technique investigating baseline heterogeneity helped to eliminate potential bias in meta-analyses.
Hicks A; Fairhurst C; Torgerson DJ
J Clin Epidemiol; 2018 Mar; 95():55-62. PubMed ID: 29032245
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [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]
15. Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews of Non-Randomized Studies of Adverse Cardiovascular Effects of Thiazolidinediones and Cyclooxygenase-2 Inhibitors: Application of a New Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.
Bilandzic A; Fitzpatrick T; Rosella L; Henry D
PLoS Med; 2016 Apr; 13(4):e1001987. PubMed ID: 27046153
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Strategies to improve the credibility of meta-analyses in spine surgery: a systematic survey.
Evaniew N; van der Watt L; Bhandari M; Ghert M; Aleem I; Drew B; Guyatt G
Spine J; 2015 Sep; 15(9):2066-76. PubMed ID: 26002725
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Non-genetic risk factors for cutaneous melanoma and keratinocyte skin cancers: An umbrella review of meta-analyses.
Belbasis L; Stefanaki I; Stratigos AJ; Evangelou E
J Dermatol Sci; 2016 Dec; 84(3):330-339. PubMed ID: 27663092
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Credibility of subgroup findings in clinical trials and meta-analyses.
Myles P; Kasza J; Turner T
Br J Anaesth; 2021 Jul; 127(1):11-14. PubMed ID: 33992396
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Interpretation of tests of heterogeneity and bias in meta-analysis.
Ioannidis JP
J Eval Clin Pract; 2008 Oct; 14(5):951-7. PubMed ID: 19018930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Misleading funnel plot for detection of bias in meta-analysis.
Tang JL; Liu JL
J Clin Epidemiol; 2000 May; 53(5):477-84. PubMed ID: 10812319
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
