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 *

162 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26705602)

  • 21. Fixed- versus random-effects models in meta-analysis: model properties and an empirical comparison of differences in results.
    Schmidt FL; Oh IS; Hayes TL
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2009 Feb; 62(Pt 1):97-128. PubMed ID: 18001516
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. A meta-epidemiological study to examine the association between bias and treatment effects in neonatal trials.
    Bialy L; Vandermeer B; Lacaze-Masmonteil T; Dryden DM; Hartling L
    Evid Based Child Health; 2014 Dec; 9(4):1052-9. PubMed ID: 25504975
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Meta-analysis to determine the effects of plant disease management measures: review and case studies on soybean and apple.
    Ngugi HK; Esker PD; Scherm H
    Phytopathology; 2011 Jan; 101(1):31-41. PubMed ID: 20854109
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Neither fixed nor random: weighted least squares meta-analysis.
    Stanley TD; Doucouliagos H
    Stat Med; 2015 Jun; 34(13):2116-27. PubMed ID: 25809462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Statistical primer: methodology and reporting of meta-analyses.
    Buccheri S; Sodeck GH; Capodanno D
    Eur J Cardiothorac Surg; 2018 Apr; 53(4):708-713. PubMed ID: 29538746
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. A comparison of methods for fixed effects meta-analysis of individual patient data with time to event outcomes.
    Tudur Smith C; Williamson PR
    Clin Trials; 2007; 4(6):621-30. PubMed ID: 18042571
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Large trials vs meta-analysis of smaller trials: how do their results compare?
    Cappelleri JC; Ioannidis JP; Schmid CH; de Ferranti SD; Aubert M; Chalmers TC; Lau J
    JAMA; 1996 Oct 23-30; 276(16):1332-8. PubMed ID: 8861993
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Conducting systematic reviews of association (etiology): The Joanna Briggs Institute's approach.
    Moola S; Munn Z; Sears K; Sfetcu R; Currie M; Lisy K; Tufanaru C; Qureshi R; Mattis P; Mu P
    Int J Evid Based Healthc; 2015 Sep; 13(3):163-9. PubMed ID: 26262566
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Understanding heterogeneity in meta-analysis: the role of meta-regression.
    Baker WL; White CM; Cappelleri JC; Kluger J; Coleman CI;
    Int J Clin Pract; 2009 Oct; 63(10):1426-34. PubMed ID: 19769699
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Problems caused by heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a case study of acupuncture trials.
    Prady SL; Burch J; Crouch S; MacPherson H
    Acupunct Med; 2014 Feb; 32(1):56-61. PubMed ID: 24140758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Meta-analysis: Problems with Russian Publications.
    Verbitskaya EV
    Int J Risk Saf Med; 2015; 27 Suppl 1():S89-90. PubMed ID: 26639728
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Practical and updated guidelines on performing meta-analyses of non-randomized studies in interventional cardiology.
    Navarese EP; Koziński M; Pafundi T; Andreotti F; Buffon A; Servi SD; Kubica J
    Cardiol J; 2011; 18(1):3-7. PubMed ID: 21305479
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Publication bias in dermatology systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
    Atakpo P; Vassar M
    J Dermatol Sci; 2016 May; 82(2):69-74. PubMed ID: 26925817
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. How to read and understand and use systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
    Leucht S; Kissling W; Davis JM
    Acta Psychiatr Scand; 2009 Jun; 119(6):443-50. PubMed ID: 19469725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Can we rely on the best trial? A comparison of individual trials and systematic reviews.
    Glasziou PP; Shepperd S; Brassey J
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2010 Mar; 10():23. PubMed ID: 20298582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Invited review: Integrating quantitative findings from multiple studies using mixed model methodology.
    St-Pierre NR
    J Dairy Sci; 2001 Apr; 84(4):741-55. PubMed ID: 11352149
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. [Meta-analysis: principles and pitfalls].
    Opstelten W; Scholten RJ
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2014; 158(6):A6882. PubMed ID: 24495372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Random-effects meta-analyses are not always conservative.
    Poole C; Greenland S
    Am J Epidemiol; 1999 Sep; 150(5):469-75. PubMed ID: 10472946
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. On combining dose-response data from epidemiological studies by meta-analysis.
    Smith SJ; Caudill SP; Steinberg KK; Thacker SB
    Stat Med; 1995 Mar 15-Apr 15; 14(5-7):531-44. PubMed ID: 7792446
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. [Statistic pitfalls or how should we interprete numbers in the evaluation of a new treatment].
    Martin-Du Pan R
    Rev Med Suisse Romande; 1998 Jun; 118(6):547-52. PubMed ID: 9689866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.