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 *

218 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25638457)

  • 1. Systematic review found AMSTAR, but not R(evised)-AMSTAR, to have good measurement properties.
    Pieper D; Buechter RB; Li L; Prediger B; Eikermann M
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 May; 68(5):574-83. PubMed ID: 25638457
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.
    Shea BJ; Hamel C; Wells GA; Bouter LM; Kristjansson E; Grimshaw J; Henry DA; Boers M
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Oct; 62(10):1013-20. PubMed ID: 19230606
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Measuring test-retest reliability (TRR) of AMSTAR provides moderate to perfect agreement - a contribution to the discussion of the importance of TRR in relation to the psychometric properties of assessment tools.
    Bühn S; Ober P; Mathes T; Wegewitz U; Jacobs A; Pieper D
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 Mar; 21(1):51. PubMed ID: 33706710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Inter-rater reliability of AMSTAR is dependent on the pair of reviewers.
    Pieper D; Jacobs A; Weikert B; Fishta A; Wegewitz U
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Jul; 17(1):98. PubMed ID: 28693497
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of methodological quality rating of systematic reviews on neuropathic pain using AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR.
    Dosenovic S; Jelicic Kadic A; Vucic K; Markovina N; Pieper D; Puljak L
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2018 May; 18(1):37. PubMed ID: 29739339
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. [Assessment of reliability and validity of assessment of multiple systematic reviews in Chinese systematic reviews on stomatology].
    Su N; Lü J; Li C; Chen L; Shi Z
    Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2013 Feb; 31(1):49-52. PubMed ID: 23484302
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A psychometric study found AMSTAR 2 to be a valid and moderately reliable appraisal tool.
    Lorenz RC; Matthias K; Pieper D; Wegewitz U; Morche J; Nocon M; Rissling O; Schirm J; Jacobs A
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2019 Oct; 114():133-140. PubMed ID: 31152864
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Evaluation of the reliability, usability, and applicability of AMSTAR, AMSTAR 2, and ROBIS: protocol for a descriptive analytic study.
    Gates A; Gates M; Duarte G; Cary M; Becker M; Prediger B; Vandermeer B; Fernandes RM; Pieper D; Hartling L
    Syst Rev; 2018 Jun; 7(1):85. PubMed ID: 29898777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR).
    Shea BJ; Bouter LM; Peterson J; Boers M; Andersson N; Ortiz Z; Ramsay T; Bai A; Shukla VK; Grimshaw JM
    PLoS One; 2007 Dec; 2(12):e1350. PubMed ID: 18159233
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Can AMSTAR also be applied to systematic reviews of non-randomized studies?
    Pieper D; Mathes T; Eikermann M
    BMC Res Notes; 2014 Sep; 7():609. PubMed ID: 25193554
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses available for bovine and equine veterinarians and quality of abstract reporting: A scoping review.
    Buczinski S; Ferraro S; Vandeweerd JM
    Prev Vet Med; 2018 Dec; 161():50-59. PubMed ID: 30466658
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The measurement of collaboration within healthcare settings: a systematic review of measurement properties of instruments.
    Walters SJ; Stern C; Robertson-Malt S
    JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep; 2016 Apr; 14(4):138-97. PubMed ID: 27532315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Minor differences were found between AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS in the assessment of systematic reviews including both randomized and nonrandomized studies.
    Pieper D; Puljak L; González-Lorenzo M; Minozzi S
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2019 Apr; 108():26-33. PubMed ID: 30543911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The risk of bias in systematic reviews tool showed fair reliability and good construct validity.
    Bühn S; Mathes T; Prengel P; Wegewitz U; Ostermann T; Robens S; Pieper D
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2017 Nov; 91():121-128. PubMed ID: 28694122
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Methodological quality of systematic reviews in subfertility: a comparison of two different approaches.
    Popovich I; Windsor B; Jordan V; Showell M; Shea B; Farquhar CM
    PLoS One; 2012; 7(12):e50403. PubMed ID: 23300526
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. How is AMSTAR applied by authors - a call for better reporting.
    Pieper D; Koensgen N; Breuing J; Ge L; Wegewitz U
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2018 Jun; 18(1):56. PubMed ID: 29914386
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Quality and risk of bias appraisals of systematic reviews are inconsistent across reviewers and centers.
    Gates M; Gates A; Duarte G; Cary M; Becker M; Prediger B; Vandermeer B; Fernandes RM; Pieper D; Hartling L
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2020 Sep; 125():9-15. PubMed ID: 32416337
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Limitations of A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and suggestions for improvement.
    Burda BU; Holmer HK; Norris SL
    Syst Rev; 2016 Apr; 5():58. PubMed ID: 27072548
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality.
    Pussegoda K; Turner L; Garritty C; Mayhew A; Skidmore B; Stevens A; Boutron I; Sarkis-Onofre R; Bjerre LM; Hróbjartsson A; Altman DG; Moher D
    Syst Rev; 2017 Jul; 6(1):131. PubMed ID: 28720117
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [Not Available].
    Brosseau L; Laroche C; Guitard P; King J; Poitras S; Casimiro L; Barette JA; Cardinal D; Cavallo S; Laferrière L; Martini R; Champoux N; Taverne J; Paquette C; Tremblay S; Sutton A; Galipeau R; Tourigny J; Toupin-April K; Loew L; Demers C; Sauvé-Schenk K; Paquet N; Savard J; Lagacé J; Pharand D; Vaillancourt V
    Physiother Can; 2017; 69(1):20-29. PubMed ID: 28154441
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.