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 *

351 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26003435)

  • 1. Advances in the meta-analysis of heterogeneous clinical trials I: The inverse variance heterogeneity model.
    Doi SA; Barendregt JJ; Khan S; Thalib L; Williams GM
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2015 Nov; 45(Pt A):130-8. PubMed ID: 26003435
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Advances in the meta-analysis of heterogeneous clinical trials II: The quality effects model.
    Doi SA; Barendregt JJ; Khan S; Thalib L; Williams GM
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2015 Nov; 45(Pt A):123-9. PubMed ID: 26003432
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Selecting the best meta-analytic estimator for evidence-based practice: a simulation study.
    Doi SAR; Furuya-Kanamori L
    Int J Evid Based Healthc; 2020 Mar; 18(1):86-94. PubMed ID: 31764215
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in simulated random-effects meta-analyses.
    Langan D; Higgins JPT; Jackson D; Bowden J; Veroniki AA; Kontopantelis E; Viechtbauer W; Simmonds M
    Res Synth Methods; 2019 Mar; 10(1):83-98. PubMed ID: 30067315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. An improved method for bivariate meta-analysis when within-study correlations are unknown.
    Hong C; D Riley R; Chen Y
    Res Synth Methods; 2018 Mar; 9(1):73-88. PubMed ID: 29055096
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The importance of effect mechanism in the design and interpretation of clinical trials: the role of magnesium in acute myocardial infarction.
    Woods KL; Abrams K
    Prog Cardiovasc Dis; 2002; 44(4):267-74. PubMed ID: 12007082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Methods to estimate the between-study variance and its uncertainty in meta-analysis.
    Veroniki AA; Jackson D; Viechtbauer W; Bender R; Bowden J; Knapp G; Kuss O; Higgins JP; Langan D; Salanti G
    Res Synth Methods; 2016 Mar; 7(1):55-79. PubMed ID: 26332144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A comparison of methods for meta-analysis of a small number of studies with binary outcomes.
    Mathes T; Kuss O
    Res Synth Methods; 2018 Sep; 9(3):366-381. PubMed ID: 29573180
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Methods for estimating between-study variance and overall effect in meta-analysis of odds ratios.
    Bakbergenuly I; Hoaglin DC; Kulinskaya E
    Res Synth Methods; 2020 May; 11(3):426-442. PubMed ID: 32112619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Confidence intervals for a random-effects meta-analysis based on Bartlett-type corrections.
    Noma H
    Stat Med; 2011 Dec; 30(28):3304-12. PubMed ID: 21964669
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A random effects variance shift model for detecting and accommodating outliers in meta-analysis.
    Gumedze FN; Jackson D
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2011 Feb; 11():19. PubMed ID: 21324180
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A generalized weighting regression-derived meta-analysis estimator robust to small-study effects and heterogeneity.
    Moreno SG; Sutton AJ; Thompson JR; Ades AE; Abrams KR; Cooper NJ
    Stat Med; 2012 Jun; 31(14):1407-17. PubMed ID: 22351645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A simplification and implementation of random-effects meta-analyses based on the exact distribution of Cochran's Q.
    Preuß M; Ziegler A
    Methods Inf Med; 2014; 53(1):54-61. PubMed ID: 24317521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Jackknife empirical likelihood confidence intervals for assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis of rare binary event data.
    Wang G; Cheng Y; Chen M; Wang X
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2021 Aug; 107():106440. PubMed ID: 34015509
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A likelihood ratio test for the homogeneity of between-study variance in network meta-analysis.
    Hu D; Wang C; O'Connor AM
    Syst Rev; 2021 Dec; 10(1):310. PubMed ID: 34886897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Impact of analysing continuous outcomes using final values, change scores and analysis of covariance on the performance of meta-analytic methods: a simulation study.
    McKenzie JE; Herbison GP; Deeks JJ
    Res Synth Methods; 2016 Dec; 7(4):371-386. PubMed ID: 26715122
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Assessing Heterogeneity in Random-Effects Meta-analysis.
    Langan D
    Methods Mol Biol; 2022; 2345():67-89. PubMed ID: 34550584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A comparison of methods for fixed effects meta-analysis of individual patient data with time to event outcomes.
    Tudur Smith C; Williamson PR
    Clin Trials; 2007; 4(6):621-30. PubMed ID: 18042571
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [Statistical analysis of community-based studies -- presentation and comparison of possible solutions with reference to statistical meta-analytic methods].
    Twardella D; Bruckner T; Blettner M
    Gesundheitswesen; 2005 Jan; 67(1):48-55. PubMed ID: 15672306
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 18.