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 *

147 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26386323)

  • 1. High statistical heterogeneity is more frequent in meta-analysis of continuous than binary outcomes.
    Alba AC; Alexander PE; Chang J; MacIsaac J; DeFry S; Guyatt GH
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2016 Feb; 70():129-35. PubMed ID: 26386323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Sensitivity subgroup analysis based on single-center vs. multi-center trial status when interpreting meta-analyses pooled estimates: the logical way forward.
    Alexander PE; Bonner AJ; Agarwal A; Li SA; Hariharan A; Izhar Z; Bhatnagar N; Alba C; Akl EA; Fei Y; Guyatt GH; Beyene J
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2016 Jun; 74():80-92. PubMed ID: 26597972
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Single-center trials show larger treatment effects than multicenter trials: evidence from a meta-epidemiologic study.
    Dechartres A; Boutron I; Trinquart L; Charles P; Ravaud P
    Ann Intern Med; 2011 Jul; 155(1):39-51. PubMed ID: 21727292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Robustness assessments are needed to reduce bias in meta-analyses that include zero-event randomized trials.
    Keus F; Wetterslev J; Gluud C; Gooszen HG; van Laarhoven CJ
    Am J Gastroenterol; 2009 Mar; 104(3):546-51. PubMed ID: 19262513
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Combining summaries of binary outcomes with those of continuous outcomes in a meta-analysis.
    Whitehead A; Bailey AJ; Elbourne D
    J Biopharm Stat; 1999 Mar; 9(1):1-16. PubMed ID: 10091907
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Assessing the reporting and scientific quality of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials of treatments for anxiety disorders.
    Bereza BG; Machado M; Einarson TR
    Ann Pharmacother; 2008 Oct; 42(10):1402-9. PubMed ID: 18728102
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Small studies are more heterogeneous than large ones: a meta-meta-analysis.
    IntHout J; Ioannidis JP; Borm GF; Goeman JJ
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 Aug; 68(8):860-9. PubMed ID: 25959635
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Heterogeneity and statistical significance in meta-analysis: an empirical study of 125 meta-analyses.
    Engels EA; Schmid CH; Terrin N; Olkin I; Lau J
    Stat Med; 2000 Jul; 19(13):1707-28. PubMed ID: 10861773
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Meta-analyses involving cluster randomization trials: a review of published literature in health care.
    Laopaiboon M
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2003 Dec; 12(6):515-30. PubMed ID: 14653354
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Empirical evidence about inconsistency among studies in a pair-wise meta-analysis.
    Rhodes KM; Turner RM; Higgins JP
    Res Synth Methods; 2016 Dec; 7(4):346-370. PubMed ID: 26679486
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Borrowing strength from external trials in a meta-analysis.
    Higgins JP; Whitehead A
    Stat Med; 1996 Dec; 15(24):2733-49. PubMed ID: 8981683
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Quantitative synthesis in systematic reviews.
    Lau J; Ioannidis JP; Schmid CH
    Ann Intern Med; 1997 Nov; 127(9):820-6. PubMed ID: 9382404
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A tutorial on Bayesian bivariate meta-analysis of mixed binary-continuous outcomes with missing treatment effects.
    Gajic-Veljanoski O; Cheung AM; Bayoumi AM; Tomlinson G
    Stat Med; 2016 May; 35(12):2092-108. PubMed ID: 26553369
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in 'meta-epidemiological' research.
    Sterne JA; Jüni P; Schulz KF; Altman DG; Bartlett C; Egger M
    Stat Med; 2002 Jun; 21(11):1513-24. PubMed ID: 12111917
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies.
    Ioannidis JP; Haidich AB; Pappa M; Pantazis N; Kokori SI; Tektonidou MG; Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG; Lau J
    JAMA; 2001 Aug; 286(7):821-30. PubMed ID: 11497536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A Quantitative Assessment of the Reporting Quality of Herbal Medicine Research: The Road to Improvement.
    Naumann K
    J Altern Complement Med; 2018 Feb; 24(2):168-181. PubMed ID: 28915066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Ratio of geometric means to analyze continuous outcomes in meta-analysis: comparison to mean differences and ratio of arithmetic means using empiric data and simulation.
    Friedrich JO; Adhikari NK; Beyene J
    Stat Med; 2012 Jul; 31(17):1857-86. PubMed ID: 22438170
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Adjustment of meta-analyses on the basis of quality scores should be abandoned.
    Herbison P; Hay-Smith J; Gillespie WJ
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2006 Dec; 59(12):1249-56. PubMed ID: 17098567
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.