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 *

263 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25809462)

  • 21. Arcsine test for publication bias in meta-analyses with binary outcomes.
    Rücker G; Schwarzer G; Carpenter J
    Stat Med; 2008 Feb; 27(5):746-63. PubMed ID: 17592831
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Maximum likelihood estimation in meta-analytic structural equation modeling.
    Oort FJ; Jak S
    Res Synth Methods; 2016 Jun; 7(2):156-67. PubMed ID: 27286901
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Performance of the trim and fill method in the presence of publication bias and between-study heterogeneity.
    Peters JL; Sutton AJ; Jones DR; Abrams KR; Rushton L
    Stat Med; 2007 Nov; 26(25):4544-62. PubMed ID: 17476644
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Selective Weighted Least Squares Method for Fourier Transform Infrared Quantitative Analysis.
    Wang X; Li Y; Wei H; Chen X
    Appl Spectrosc; 2017 Jun; 71(6):1231-1241. PubMed ID: 27798384
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. A comparison of methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis.
    Macaskill P; Walter SD; Irwig L
    Stat Med; 2001 Feb; 20(4):641-54. PubMed ID: 11223905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Meta-analyses in systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in perinatal medicine: comparison of fixed and random effects models.
    Villar J; Mackey ME; Carroli G; Donner A
    Stat Med; 2001 Dec; 20(23):3635-47. PubMed ID: 11746343
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Avoiding zero between-study variance estimates in random-effects meta-analysis.
    Chung Y; Rabe-Hesketh S; Choi IH
    Stat Med; 2013 Oct; 32(23):4071-89. PubMed ID: 23670939
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Methods for analyzing data from probabilistic linkage strategies based on partially identifying variables.
    Hof MH; Zwinderman AH
    Stat Med; 2012 Dec; 31(30):4231-42. PubMed ID: 22807060
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. The file-drawer problem revisited: a general weighted method for calculating fail-safe numbers in meta-analysis.
    Rosenberg MS
    Evolution; 2005 Feb; 59(2):464-8. PubMed ID: 15807430
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. How meta-analysis increases statistical power.
    Cohn LD; Becker BJ
    Psychol Methods; 2003 Sep; 8(3):243-53. PubMed ID: 14596489
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Generalized least squares for assessing trends in cumulative meta-analysis with applications in genetic epidemiology.
    Bagos PG; Nikolopoulos GK
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Oct; 62(10):1037-44. PubMed ID: 19345563
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Evaluation of underlying risk as a source of heterogeneity in meta-analyses: a simulation study of Bayesian and frequentist implementations of three models.
    Dohoo I; Stryhn H; Sanchez J
    Prev Vet Med; 2007 Sep; 81(1-3):38-55. PubMed ID: 17477995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Confidence intervals for the overall effect size in random-effects meta-analysis.
    Sánchez-Meca J; Marín-Martínez F
    Psychol Methods; 2008 Mar; 13(1):31-48. PubMed ID: 18331152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Fixed- versus random-effects models in meta-analysis: model properties and an empirical comparison of differences in results.
    Schmidt FL; Oh IS; Hayes TL
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2009 Feb; 62(Pt 1):97-128. PubMed ID: 18001516
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Meta-analysis using effect size distributions of only statistically significant studies.
    van Assen MA; van Aert RC; Wicherts JM
    Psychol Methods; 2015 Sep; 20(3):293-309. PubMed ID: 25401773
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Random-effects meta-analyses are not always conservative.
    Poole C; Greenland S
    Am J Epidemiol; 1999 Sep; 150(5):469-75. PubMed ID: 10472946
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Detecting and adjusting for small-study effects in meta-analysis.
    Rücker G; Carpenter JR; Schwarzer G
    Biom J; 2011 Mar; 53(2):351-68. PubMed ID: 21374698
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. A random-effects regression model for meta-analysis.
    Berkey CS; Hoaglin DC; Mosteller F; Colditz GA
    Stat Med; 1995 Feb; 14(4):395-411. PubMed ID: 7746979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Statistical methods for dealing with publication bias in meta-analysis.
    Jin ZC; Zhou XH; He J
    Stat Med; 2015 Jan; 34(2):343-60. PubMed ID: 25363575
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis.
    Peters JL; Sutton AJ; Jones DR; Abrams KR; Rushton L
    JAMA; 2006 Feb; 295(6):676-80. PubMed ID: 16467236
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.