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 *

121 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26142113)

  • 1. Response to letter by Boeker et al. Development of search strategies for systematic reviews: further issues regarding the objective and conceptual approaches.
    Hausner E; Waffenschmidt S
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2016 Jan; 69():255-7. PubMed ID: 26142113
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Development of search strategies for systematic reviews: reply to commentary by Dintsios and Niederstadt (Letter commenting on: J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68:191-199).
    Hausner E; Waffenschmidt S
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2016 Jan; 69():259-61. PubMed ID: 26093311
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Literature search methodology for systematic reviews: conventional and natural language processing enabled methods are complementary (Letter commenting on: J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68:191-9).
    Boeker M; Motschall E; Vach W
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2016 Jan; 69():253-5. PubMed ID: 26117425
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. When suddenly the evaluation became a validation.
    Dintsios CM; Niederstadt C
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2016 Jan; 69():257-9. PubMed ID: 26093312
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Development of search strategies for systematic reviews: validation showed the noninferiority of the objective approach.
    Hausner E; Guddat C; Hermanns T; Lampert U; Waffenschmidt S
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 Feb; 68(2):191-9. PubMed ID: 25464826
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Critical Assessment of Search Strategies in Systematic Reviews in Endodontics.
    Yaylali IE; Alaçam T
    J Endod; 2016 Jun; 42(6):854-60. PubMed ID: 27071976
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Optimal search filters for renal information in EMBASE.
    Iansavichus AV; Haynes RB; Shariff SZ; Weir M; Wilczynski NL; McKibbon A; Rehman F; Garg AX
    Am J Kidney Dis; 2010 Jul; 56(1):14-22. PubMed ID: 20231047
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Performance of a mixed filter to identify relevant studies for mixed studies reviews.
    El Sherif R; Pluye P; Gore G; Granikov V; Hong QN
    J Med Libr Assoc; 2016 Jan; 104(1):47-51. PubMed ID: 26807052
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comments on: Validity and Reliability of a Systematic Database Search Strategy to Identify Publications Resulting From Pharmacy Residency Research Projects.
    Vouri SM; Stranges PM; Nissen J
    J Pharm Pract; 2015 Dec; 28(6):497-8. PubMed ID: 26423922
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Limits of search filter development.
    Wilczynski NL; Lokker C; McKibbon KA; Hobson N; Haynes RB
    J Med Libr Assoc; 2016 Jan; 104(1):42-6. PubMed ID: 26807051
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Systematic reviews can be produced and published faster.
    Sampson M; Shojania KG; Garritty C; Horsley T; Ocampo M; Moher D
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Jun; 61(6):531-6. PubMed ID: 18471656
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Searching for evidence or approval? A commentary on database search in systematic reviews and alternative information retrieval methodologies.
    Delaney A; Tamás PA
    Res Synth Methods; 2018 Mar; 9(1):124-131. PubMed ID: 29106042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Finding studies for inclusion in systematic reviews of interventions for injury prevention the importance of grey and unpublished literature.
    Blackhall K
    Inj Prev; 2007 Oct; 13(5):359. PubMed ID: 17916897
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Issues regarding systematic review reports and trial heterogeneity.
    Meads C; Sheffield D
    J Nerv Ment Dis; 2005 Jun; 193(6):424-5; author reply 425-6. PubMed ID: 15920385
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Prospective comparison of search strategies for systematic reviews: an objective approach yielded higher sensitivity than a conceptual one.
    Hausner E; Guddat C; Hermanns T; Lampert U; Waffenschmidt S
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2016 Sep; 77():118-124. PubMed ID: 27256930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. No consensus exists on search reporting methods for systematic reviews.
    Sampson M; McGowan J; Tetzlaff J; Cogo E; Moher D
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Aug; 61(8):748-54. PubMed ID: 18586178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews.
    Methley AM; Campbell S; Chew-Graham C; McNally R; Cheraghi-Sohi S
    BMC Health Serv Res; 2014 Nov; 14():579. PubMed ID: 25413154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Optimal search strategies for retrieving systematic reviews from Medline: analytical survey.
    Montori VM; Wilczynski NL; Morgan D; Haynes RB;
    BMJ; 2005 Jan; 330(7482):68. PubMed ID: 15619601
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources.
    Greenhalgh T; Peacock R
    BMJ; 2005 Nov; 331(7524):1064-5. PubMed ID: 16230312
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A comparison of results of empirical studies of supplementary search techniques and recommendations in review methodology handbooks: a methodological review.
    Cooper C; Booth A; Britten N; Garside R
    Syst Rev; 2017 Nov; 6(1):234. PubMed ID: 29179733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.