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 *

110 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26071043)

  • 1. Managing the incidence of selective reporting bias: a survey of Cochrane review groups.
    Reid EK; Tejani AM; Huan LN; Egan G; O'Sullivan C; Mayhew AD; Kabir M
    Syst Rev; 2015 Jun; 4():85. PubMed ID: 26071043
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Scope and quality of Cochrane reviews of nutrition interventions: a cross-sectional study.
    Naude CE; Durao S; Harper A; Volmink J
    Nutr J; 2017 Apr; 16(1):22. PubMed ID: 28388919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Methodological quality of systematic reviews in subfertility: a comparison of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in assisted reproductive technologies.
    Windsor B; Popovich I; Jordan V; Showell M; Shea B; Farquhar C
    Hum Reprod; 2012 Dec; 27(12):3460-6. PubMed ID: 23034152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Risk of bias assessments for selective reporting were inadequate in the majority of Cochrane reviews.
    Saric F; Barcot O; Puljak L
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2019 Aug; 112():53-58. PubMed ID: 31009658
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Risk of bias judgments for random sequence generation in Cochrane systematic reviews were frequently not in line with Cochrane Handbook.
    Barcot O; Boric M; Poklepovic Pericic T; Cavar M; Dosenovic S; Vuka I; Puljak L
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Aug; 19(1):170. PubMed ID: 31382898
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Selective reporting bias of harm outcomes within studies: findings from a cohort of systematic reviews.
    Saini P; Loke YK; Gamble C; Altman DG; Williamson PR; Kirkham JJ
    BMJ; 2014 Nov; 349():g6501. PubMed ID: 25416499
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Can trial quality be reliably assessed from published reports of cancer trials: evaluation of risk of bias assessments in systematic reviews.
    Vale CL; Tierney JF; Burdett S
    BMJ; 2013 Apr; 346():f1798. PubMed ID: 23610376
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Evaluation of risk of bias assessment of trials in systematic reviews of oral health interventions, 1991-2014: A methodology study.
    Saltaji H; Ospina MB; Armijo-Olivo S; Agarwal S; Cummings GG; Amin M; Flores-Mir C
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2016 Sep; 147(9):720-728.e1. PubMed ID: 27155754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. How do authors of systematic reviews deal with research malpractice and misconduct in original studies? A cross-sectional analysis of systematic reviews and survey of their authors.
    Elia N; von Elm E; Chatagner A; Pöpping DM; Tramèr MR
    BMJ Open; 2016 Mar; 6(3):e010442. PubMed ID: 26936908
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Is the evaluation of risk of bias in periodontology and implant dentistry comprehensive? A systematic review.
    Faggion CM; Listl S; Alarcón MA
    J Clin Periodontol; 2015 May; 42(5):488-94. PubMed ID: 25809114
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Tools to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews of nursing intervention in China: Global implications of the findings.
    Zhang J; Wang J; Han L; Cao X; Shields L
    Nurs Outlook; 2017; 65(4):380-391. PubMed ID: 28024756
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Representation of women as editors in the Cochrane collaboration.
    Bhaumik S; Mathew RJ
    J Evid Based Med; 2014 Dec; 7(4):249-51. PubMed ID: 25586454
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Rethinking the assessment of risk of bias due to selective reporting: a cross-sectional study.
    Page MJ; Higgins JP
    Syst Rev; 2016 Jul; 5(1):108. PubMed ID: 27392044
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The Cochrane collaboration in neurology: acquisitions, research, and new initiatives.
    Tonini C; Beghi E; Telaro E; Candelise L
    Neuroepidemiology; 2001 May; 20(2):153-9. PubMed ID: 11359086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The impact of Cochrane Systematic Reviews: a mixed method evaluation of outputs from Cochrane Review Groups supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research.
    Bunn F; Trivedi D; Alderson P; Hamilton L; Martin A; Iliffe S
    Syst Rev; 2014 Oct; 3():125. PubMed ID: 25348511
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Side effects are incompletely reported among systematic reviews in gastroenterology.
    Mahady SE; Schlub T; Bero L; Moher D; Tovey D; George J; Craig JC
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 Feb; 68(2):144-53. PubMed ID: 25124168
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. There were large discrepancies in risk of bias tool judgments when a randomized controlled trial appeared in more than one systematic review.
    Jordan VM; Lensen SF; Farquhar CM
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2017 Jan; 81():72-76. PubMed ID: 27622779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Evolution of poor reporting and inadequate methods over time in 20 920 randomised controlled trials included in Cochrane reviews: research on research study.
    Dechartres A; Trinquart L; Atal I; Moher D; Dickersin K; Boutron I; Perrodeau E; Altman DG; Ravaud P
    BMJ; 2017 Jun; 357():j2490. PubMed ID: 28596181
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [Volume and health outcomes: an overview of systematic reviews].
    Davoli M; Amato L; Minozzi S; Bargagli AM; Vecchi S; Perucci CA
    Epidemiol Prev; 2005; 29(3-4 Suppl):3-63. PubMed ID: 16529350
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.