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 *

269 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26116616)

  • 1. Performance of methods for meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy with few studies or sparse data.
    Takwoingi Y; Guo B; Riley RD; Deeks JJ
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2017 Aug; 26(4):1896-1911. PubMed ID: 26116616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The Moses-Littenberg meta-analytical method generates systematic differences in test accuracy compared to hierarchical meta-analytical models.
    Dinnes J; Mallett S; Hopewell S; Roderick PJ; Deeks JJ
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2016 Dec; 80():77-87. PubMed ID: 27485293
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. An empirical comparison of methods for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy showed hierarchical models are necessary.
    Harbord RM; Whiting P; Sterne JA; Egger M; Deeks JJ; Shang A; Bachmann LM
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Nov; 61(11):1095-103. PubMed ID: 19208372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A unification of models for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies without a gold standard.
    Liu Y; Chen Y; Chu H
    Biometrics; 2015 Jun; 71(2):538-47. PubMed ID: 25358907
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Empirical Bayes estimates generated in a hierarchical summary ROC analysis agreed closely with those of a full Bayesian analysis.
    Macaskill P
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2004 Sep; 57(9):925-32. PubMed ID: 15504635
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. An evaluation of computational methods for aggregate data meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies.
    Zhao Y; Khan B; Negeri ZF
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2024 May; 24(1):111. PubMed ID: 38730436
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A methodological review of how heterogeneity has been examined in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy.
    Dinnes J; Deeks J; Kirby J; Roderick P
    Health Technol Assess; 2005 Mar; 9(12):1-113, iii. PubMed ID: 15774235
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A general framework for the use of logistic regression models in meta-analysis.
    Simmonds MC; Higgins JP
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2016 Dec; 25(6):2858-2877. PubMed ID: 24823642
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A new method for synthesizing test accuracy data outperformed the bivariate method.
    Furuya-Kanamori L; Kostoulas P; Doi SAR
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2021 Apr; 132():51-58. PubMed ID: 33333166
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy.
    Leeflang MM
    Clin Microbiol Infect; 2014 Feb; 20(2):105-13. PubMed ID: 24274632
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Graphical enhancements to summary receiver operating characteristic plots to facilitate the analysis and reporting of meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy data.
    Patel A; Cooper N; Freeman S; Sutton A
    Res Synth Methods; 2021 Jan; 12(1):34-44. PubMed ID: 32706182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy.
    Leeflang MM; Deeks JJ; Gatsonis C; Bossuyt PM;
    Ann Intern Med; 2008 Dec; 149(12):889-97. PubMed ID: 19075208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Bivariate random-effects meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity with SAS PROC GLIMMIX.
    Menke J
    Methods Inf Med; 2010; 49(1):54-62, 62-4. PubMed ID: 19936437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A double SIMEX approach for bivariate random-effects meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies.
    Guolo A
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Jan; 17(1):6. PubMed ID: 28077079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Skew-normal random-effects model for meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies.
    Negeri ZF; Beyene J
    Biom J; 2020 Sep; 62(5):1223-1244. PubMed ID: 32022315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Mixture models in diagnostic meta-analyses--clustering summary receiver operating characteristic curves accounted for heterogeneity and correlation.
    Schlattmann P; Verba M; Dewey M; Walther M
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 Jan; 68(1):61-72. PubMed ID: 25441701
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Tutorial: statistical methods for the meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies.
    Schlattmann P
    Clin Chem Lab Med; 2023 Apr; 61(5):777-794. PubMed ID: 36656998
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews.
    Reitsma JB; Glas AS; Rutjes AW; Scholten RJ; Bossuyt PM; Zwinderman AH
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2005 Oct; 58(10):982-90. PubMed ID: 16168343
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Guidelines for diagnostic tests and diagnostic accuracy in surgical research.
    Jones CM; Ashrafian H; Darzi A; Athanasiou T
    J Invest Surg; 2010 Feb; 23(1):57-65. PubMed ID: 20233006
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.