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 *

1363 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26288063)

  • 21. The impact of Cochrane Reviews: a mixed-methods evaluation of outputs from Cochrane Review Groups supported by the National Institute for Health Research.
    Bunn F; Trivedi D; Alderson P; Hamilton L; Martin A; Pinkney E; Iliffe S
    Health Technol Assess; 2015 Apr; 19(28):1-99, v-vi. PubMed ID: 25875129
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)--explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force.
    Husereau D; Drummond M; Petrou S; Carswell C; Moher D; Greenberg D; Augustovski F; Briggs AH; Mauskopf J; Loder E;
    Value Health; 2013; 16(2):231-50. PubMed ID: 23538175
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Conscious sedation guidance.
    Coulthard P
    Evid Based Dent; 2006; 7(4):90-1. PubMed ID: 17187034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Methodological quality of case series studies: an introduction to the JBI critical appraisal tool.
    Munn Z; Barker TH; Moola S; Tufanaru C; Stern C; McArthur A; Stephenson M; Aromataris E
    JBI Evid Synth; 2020 Oct; 18(10):2127-2133. PubMed ID: 33038125
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Now that we're here, where are we? The JBI approach to evidence-based healthcare 20 years on.
    Jordan Z; Munn Z; Aromataris E; Lockwood C
    Int J Evid Based Healthc; 2015 Sep; 13(3):117-20. PubMed ID: 26154180
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: Consensus on Health Economic Criteria.
    Evers S; Goossens M; de Vet H; van Tulder M; Ament A
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2005; 21(2):240-5. PubMed ID: 15921065
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews.
    Peters MDJ; Marnie C; Tricco AC; Pollock D; Munn Z; Alexander L; McInerney P; Godfrey CM; Khalil H
    JBI Evid Synth; 2020 Oct; 18(10):2119-2126. PubMed ID: 33038124
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. What guidance is available for researchers conducting overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions? A scoping review and qualitative metasummary.
    Pollock M; Fernandes RM; Becker LA; Featherstone R; Hartling L
    Syst Rev; 2016 Nov; 5(1):190. PubMed ID: 27842604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. An Evidence-Based Approach to Scoping Reviews.
    Khalil H; Peters M; Godfrey CM; McInerney P; Soares CB; Parker D
    Worldviews Evid Based Nurs; 2016 Apr; 13(2):118-23. PubMed ID: 26821833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Innovations in the systematic review of text and opinion.
    McArthur A; Klugárová J; Yan H; Florescu S
    Int J Evid Based Healthc; 2015 Sep; 13(3):188-95. PubMed ID: 26207851
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Fixed or random effects meta-analysis? Common methodological issues in systematic reviews of effectiveness.
    Tufanaru C; Munn Z; Stephenson M; Aromataris E
    Int J Evid Based Healthc; 2015 Sep; 13(3):196-207. PubMed ID: 26355603
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Systematic reviews in laboratory medicine: principles, processes and practical considerations.
    Horvath AR; Pewsner D
    Clin Chim Acta; 2004 Apr; 342(1-2):23-39. PubMed ID: 15026264
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Methodological issues in economic evaluations of disease prevention and health promotion: an overview of systematic and scoping reviews.
    Seleznova Y; Alayli A; Stock S; Müller D
    BMC Public Health; 2021 Nov; 21(1):2130. PubMed ID: 34801013
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. The QATSDD critical appraisal tool: comments and critiques.
    Fenton L; Lauckner H; Gilbert R
    J Eval Clin Pract; 2015 Dec; 21(6):1125-8. PubMed ID: 26639174
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Self-monitoring of blood glucose in type 2 diabetes mellitus: systematic review of economic evidence.
    de Verteuil R; Tan WS
    JBI Libr Syst Rev; 2010; 8(7):302-342. PubMed ID: 27819957
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Systematic reviews of health economic evaluations: a protocol for a systematic review of characteristics and methods applied.
    Luhnen M; Prediger B; Neugebauer EAM; Mathes T
    Syst Rev; 2017 Dec; 6(1):238. PubMed ID: 29197411
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Methods for systematic reviews of health economic evaluations: a systematic review, comparison, and synthesis of method literature.
    Mathes T; Walgenbach M; Antoine SL; Pieper D; Eikermann M
    Med Decis Making; 2014 Oct; 34(7):826-40. PubMed ID: 24713694
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. How to prepare a systematic review of economic evaluations for informing evidence-based healthcare decisions: data extraction, risk of bias, and transferability (part 3/3).
    Wijnen B; Van Mastrigt G; Redekop WK; Majoie H; De Kinderen R; Evers S
    Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res; 2016 Dec; 16(6):723-732. PubMed ID: 27762640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Recommendations for assessing the risk of bias in systematic reviews of health-care interventions.
    Viswanathan M; Patnode CD; Berkman ND; Bass EB; Chang S; Hartling L; Murad MH; Treadwell JR; Kane RL
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2018 May; 97():26-34. PubMed ID: 29248724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Risk of bias in overviews of reviews: a scoping review of methodological guidance and four-item checklist.
    Ballard M; Montgomery P
    Res Synth Methods; 2017 Mar; 8(1):92-108. PubMed ID: 28074553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 69.