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 *

134 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25464826)

  • 1. Development of search strategies for systematic reviews: validation showed the noninferiority of the objective approach.
    Hausner E; Guddat C; Hermanns T; Lampert U; Waffenschmidt S
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 Feb; 68(2):191-9. PubMed ID: 25464826
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Response to letter by Boeker et al. Development of search strategies for systematic reviews: further issues regarding the objective and conceptual approaches.
    Hausner E; Waffenschmidt S
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2016 Jan; 69():255-7. PubMed ID: 26142113
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Development of search strategies for systematic reviews: reply to commentary by Dintsios and Niederstadt (Letter commenting on: J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68:191-199).
    Hausner E; Waffenschmidt S
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2016 Jan; 69():259-61. PubMed ID: 26093311
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Literature search methodology for systematic reviews: conventional and natural language processing enabled methods are complementary (Letter commenting on: J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68:191-9).
    Boeker M; Motschall E; Vach W
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2016 Jan; 69():253-5. PubMed ID: 26117425
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Prospective comparison of search strategies for systematic reviews: an objective approach yielded higher sensitivity than a conceptual one.
    Hausner E; Guddat C; Hermanns T; Lampert U; Waffenschmidt S
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2016 Sep; 77():118-124. PubMed ID: 27256930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. When suddenly the evaluation became a validation.
    Dintsios CM; Niederstadt C
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2016 Jan; 69():257-9. PubMed ID: 26093312
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Optimal search strategies for retrieving systematic reviews from Medline: analytical survey.
    Montori VM; Wilczynski NL; Morgan D; Haynes RB;
    BMJ; 2005 Jan; 330(7482):68. PubMed ID: 15619601
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A validation study revealed differences in design and performance of MEDLINE search filters for qualitative research.
    Wagner M; Rosumeck S; Küffmeier C; Döring K; Euler U
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2020 Apr; 120():17-24. PubMed ID: 31862229
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Retrieval of overviews of systematic reviews in MEDLINE was improved by the development of an objectively derived and validated search strategy.
    Lunny C; McKenzie JE; McDonald S
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2016 Jun; 74():107-18. PubMed ID: 26723872
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Google Scholar as replacement for systematic literature searches: good relative recall and precision are not enough.
    Boeker M; Vach W; Motschall E
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2013 Oct; 13():131. PubMed ID: 24160679
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Critical Assessment of Search Strategies in Systematic Reviews in Endodontics.
    Yaylali IE; Alaçam T
    J Endod; 2016 Jun; 42(6):854-60. PubMed ID: 27071976
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Study filters for non-randomized studies of interventions consistently lacked sensitivity upon external validation.
    Hausner E; Metzendorf MI; Richter B; Lotz F; Waffenschmidt S
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2018 Dec; 18(1):171. PubMed ID: 30563471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparing the coverage, recall, and precision of searches for 120 systematic reviews in Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar: a prospective study.
    Bramer WM; Giustini D; Kramer BM
    Syst Rev; 2016 Mar; 5():39. PubMed ID: 26932789
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Searching literature databases for health care economic evaluations: how systematic can we afford to be?
    Sassi F; Archard L; McDaid D
    Med Care; 2002 May; 40(5):387-94. PubMed ID: 11961473
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. No consensus exists on search reporting methods for systematic reviews.
    Sampson M; McGowan J; Tetzlaff J; Cogo E; Moher D
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Aug; 61(8):748-54. PubMed ID: 18586178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Errors in search strategies were identified by type and frequency.
    Sampson M; McGowan J
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2006 Oct; 59(10):1057-63. PubMed ID: 16980145
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Identification of problems in search strategies in Cochrane Reviews.
    Franco JVA; Garrote VL; Escobar Liquitay CM; Vietto V
    Res Synth Methods; 2018 Sep; 9(3):408-416. PubMed ID: 29761662
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A comparison of the performance of seven key bibliographic databases in identifying all relevant systematic reviews of interventions for hypertension.
    Rathbone J; Carter M; Hoffmann T; Glasziou P
    Syst Rev; 2016 Feb; 5():27. PubMed ID: 26862061
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Performance of a mixed filter to identify relevant studies for mixed studies reviews.
    El Sherif R; Pluye P; Gore G; Granikov V; Hong QN
    J Med Libr Assoc; 2016 Jan; 104(1):47-51. PubMed ID: 26807052
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Meeting a need: development and validation of PubMed search filters for immigrant populations.
    Wafford QE; Miller CH; Wescott AB; Kubilius RK
    J Med Libr Assoc; 2024 Jan; 112(1):22-32. PubMed ID: 38911528
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.