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 *

157 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26408805)

  • 1. A newly developed tool for classifying study designs in systematic reviews of interventions and exposures showed substantial reliability and validity.
    Seo HJ; Kim SY; Lee YJ; Jang BH; Park JE; Sheen SS; Hahn SK
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2016 Feb; 70():200-5. PubMed ID: 26408805
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Testing a tool for the classification of study designs in systematic reviews of interventions and exposures showed moderate reliability and low accuracy.
    Hartling L; Bond K; Santaguida PL; Viswanathan M; Dryden DM
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2011 Aug; 64(8):861-71. PubMed ID: 21531537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.
    Shea BJ; Hamel C; Wells GA; Bouter LM; Kristjansson E; Grimshaw J; Henry DA; Boers M
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Oct; 62(10):1013-20. PubMed ID: 19230606
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Interrater reliability in assessing quality of diagnostic accuracy studies using the QUADAS tool. A preliminary assessment.
    Hollingworth W; Medina LS; Lenkinski RE; Shibata DK; Bernal B; Zurakowski D; Comstock B; Jarvik JG
    Acad Radiol; 2006 Jul; 13(7):803-10. PubMed ID: 16777553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Development of a quality-assessment tool for experimental bruxism studies: reliability and validity.
    Dawson A; Raphael KG; Glaros A; Axelsson S; Arima T; Ernberg M; Farella M; Lobbezoo F; Manfredini D; Michelotti A; Svensson P; List T
    J Orofac Pain; 2013; 27(2):111-22. PubMed ID: 23630683
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The risk of bias in systematic reviews tool showed fair reliability and good construct validity.
    Bühn S; Mathes T; Prengel P; Wegewitz U; Ostermann T; Robens S; Pieper D
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2017 Nov; 91():121-128. PubMed ID: 28694122
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The PEDro scale had acceptably high convergent validity, construct validity, and interrater reliability in evaluating methodological quality of pharmaceutical trials.
    Yamato TP; Maher C; Koes B; Moseley A
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2017 Jun; 86():176-181. PubMed ID: 28288916
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [Algorithm for Choosing the Study Design in Systematic Reviews].
    Peinemann F; Kleijnen J
    Klin Padiatr; 2016 Sep; 228(5):235-239. PubMed ID: 27485711
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Testing the risk of bias tool showed low reliability between individual reviewers and across consensus assessments of reviewer pairs.
    Hartling L; Hamm MP; Milne A; Vandermeer B; Santaguida PL; Ansari M; Tsertsvadze A; Hempel S; Shekelle P; Dryden DM
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2013 Sep; 66(9):973-81. PubMed ID: 22981249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Systematic review found AMSTAR, but not R(evised)-AMSTAR, to have good measurement properties.
    Pieper D; Buechter RB; Li L; Prediger B; Eikermann M
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 May; 68(5):574-83. PubMed ID: 25638457
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. From the five blind men to Cochrane Complementary Medicine systematic reviews.
    Ezzo J
    J Altern Complement Med; 2003 Dec; 9(6):969-72. PubMed ID: 14736367
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Interrater reliability and convergent validity of the American Academy for Cerebral Palsy and Developmental Medicine methodology for conducting systematic reviews.
    Wiart L; Kolaski K; Butler C; Vogtle L; Logan LR; Hickman R; Romeiser J; Samson-Fang L; Matsuba CA; Baird MW; Roxborough L; Mayson T; Dinu I
    Dev Med Child Neurol; 2012 Jul; 54(7):606-11. PubMed ID: 22577944
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Testing the Newcastle Ottawa Scale showed low reliability between individual reviewers.
    Hartling L; Milne A; Hamm MP; Vandermeer B; Ansari M; Tsertsvadze A; Dryden DM
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2013 Sep; 66(9):982-93. PubMed ID: 23683848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Assessment of the reliability of the Johns Hopkins/Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality hospital disaster drill evaluation tool.
    Kaji AH; Lewis RJ
    Ann Emerg Med; 2008 Sep; 52(3):204-10, 210.e1-8. PubMed ID: 17933427
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Misclassification of study designs in the dermatology literature.
    Ohn J; Eun SJ; Kim DY; Park HS; Cho S; Yoon HS
    J Am Acad Dermatol; 2018 Aug; 79(2):315-319. PubMed ID: 29128460
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Reviewing studies with diverse designs: the development and evaluation of a new tool.
    Sirriyeh R; Lawton R; Gardner P; Armitage G
    J Eval Clin Pract; 2012 Aug; 18(4):746-52. PubMed ID: 21410846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Systematic reviews synthesized evidence without consistent quality assessment of primary studies examining epidemiology of chronic diseases.
    Shamliyan T; Kane RL; Jansen S
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2012 Jun; 65(6):610-8. PubMed ID: 22424987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Specific instructions for estimating unclearly reported blinding status in randomized trials were reliable and valid.
    Akl EA; Sun X; Busse JW; Johnston BC; Briel M; Mulla S; You JJ; Bassler D; Lamontagne F; Vera C; Alshurafa M; Katsios CM; Heels-Ansdell D; Zhou Q; Mills E; Guyatt GH
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2012 Mar; 65(3):262-7. PubMed ID: 22200346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Systematic reviews explained: AMSTAR-how to tell the good from the bad and the ugly.
    Sharif MO; Janjua-Sharif FN; Ali H; Ahmed F
    Oral Health Dent Manag; 2013 Mar; 12(1):9-16. PubMed ID: 23474576
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.