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 *

161 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25943969)

  • 1. Reporting statistical analyses in peer review journal articles.
    Stephens R; Grant MJ
    Health Info Libr J; 2015 Jun; 32(2):81-3. PubMed ID: 25943969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Peer review at the Health Information and Libraries Journal.
    Grant MJ
    Health Info Libr J; 2014 Dec; 31(4):251-3. PubMed ID: 25443027
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Improved reporting of statistical design and analysis: guidelines, education, and editorial policies.
    Mazumdar M; Banerjee S; Van Epps HL
    Methods Mol Biol; 2010; 620():563-98. PubMed ID: 20652522
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Narrative Review of Statistical Reporting Checklists, Mandatory Statistical Editing, and Rectifying Common Problems in the Reporting of Scientific Articles.
    Dexter F; Shafer SL
    Anesth Analg; 2017 Mar; 124(3):943-947. PubMed ID: 27676281
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Statistical reviewing for disability and rehabilitation.
    Rigby AS
    Disabil Rehabil; 2009; 31(7):515-21. PubMed ID: 18608415
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Innovations in Statistical Review at European Urology.
    Assel M; Sjoberg DD; Catto JWF; Vickers AJ
    Eur Urol; 2019 Jan; 75(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 30327270
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Statistical analysis and reporting: common errors found during peer review and how to avoid them.
    Worthy G
    Swiss Med Wkly; 2015; 145():w14076. PubMed ID: 25650947
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Double check casts doubt on statistics in published papers.
    Pearson H
    Nature; 2004 Jun; 429(6991):490. PubMed ID: 15175712
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Power and meaninglessness.
    Bogduk N
    Pain Med; 2012 Feb; 13(2):148-9. PubMed ID: 22313497
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. On becoming a peer reviewer for a neuropsychology journal.
    Duff K; O'Bryant SE; Westervelt HJ; Sweet JJ; Reynolds CR; van Gorp WG; Tranel D; McCaffrey RJ
    Arch Clin Neuropsychol; 2009 May; 24(3):201-7. PubMed ID: 19640873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Qualitative research articles: information for authors and peer reviewers.
    Rowan M; Huston P
    CMAJ; 1997 Nov; 157(10):1442-6. PubMed ID: 9371080
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Quality and peer review of research: an adjudicating role for editors.
    Newton DP
    Account Res; 2010 May; 17(3):130-45. PubMed ID: 20461569
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Peer review of manuscripts.
    Ludbrook J
    J Clin Neurosci; 2002 Mar; 9(2):105-8. PubMed ID: 11922694
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A systematic guide for peer reviewers for a medical journal.
    Garfield JM; Kaye AD; Kolinsky DC; Urman RD
    J Med Pract Manage; 2015; 30(6 Spec No):13-7. PubMed ID: 26062311
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Evaluation of the literature: evidence assessment tools for clinicians.
    Prato GP; Pagliaro U; Buti J; Rotundo R; Newman MG
    J Evid Based Dent Pract; 2013 Dec; 13(4):130-41. PubMed ID: 24237732
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Translation of the scientific method... Peer review.
    Scarfe WC
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2010 Apr; 109(4):485-7. PubMed ID: 20176497
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Quality of manuscript reviews in nursing research.
    Henly SJ; Dougherty MC
    Nurs Outlook; 2009; 57(1):18-26. PubMed ID: 19150263
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Publishing in a peer-reviewed journal.
    Downer M
    Community Dent Health; 2003 Mar; 20(1):1-4. PubMed ID: 12688596
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Counterpoint: Statistical analysis in NIH peer review--identifying innovation.
    Pederson T
    FASEB J; 2007 Feb; 21(2):309-10; discussion 311. PubMed ID: 17267384
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Point: Statistical analysis in NIH peer review--identifying innovation.
    Kaplan D
    FASEB J; 2007 Feb; 21(2):305-8. PubMed ID: 17267383
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.