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 *

144 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26807052)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. A comparison of the performance of seven key bibliographic databases in identifying all relevant systematic reviews of interventions for hypertension.
    Rathbone J; Carter M; Hoffmann T; Glasziou P
    Syst Rev; 2016 Feb; 5():27. PubMed ID: 26862061
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Assessing the performance of methodological search filters to improve the efficiency of evidence information retrieval: five literature reviews and a qualitative study.
    Lefebvre C; Glanville J; Beale S; Boachie C; Duffy S; Fraser C; Harbour J; McCool R; Smith L
    Health Technol Assess; 2017 Nov; 21(69):1-148. PubMed ID: 29188764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Question-answering systems as efficient sources of terminological information: an evaluation.
    Olvera-Lobo MD; Gutiérrez-Artacho J
    Health Info Libr J; 2010 Dec; 27(4):268-76. PubMed ID: 21050369
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Discriminating between empirical studies and nonempirical works using automated text classification.
    Langlois A; Nie JY; Thomas J; Hong QN; Pluye P
    Res Synth Methods; 2018 Dec; 9(4):587-601. PubMed ID: 30103261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Reporting methodological search filter performance comparisons: a literature review.
    Harbour J; Fraser C; Lefebvre C; Glanville J; Beale S; Boachie C; Duffy S; McCool R; Smith L
    Health Info Libr J; 2014 Sep; 31(3):176-94. PubMed ID: 25082456
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Development of a search filter to identify reports of controlled clinical trials within CINAHL Plus.
    Glanville J; Dooley G; Wisniewski S; Foxlee R; Noel-Storr A
    Health Info Libr J; 2019 Mar; 36(1):73-90. PubMed ID: 30737884
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Automatic evidence retrieval for systematic reviews.
    Choong MK; Galgani F; Dunn AG; Tsafnat G
    J Med Internet Res; 2014 Oct; 16(10):e223. PubMed ID: 25274020
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Information sources for obesity prevention policy research: a review of systematic reviews.
    Hanneke R; Young SK
    Syst Rev; 2017 Aug; 6(1):156. PubMed ID: 28789703
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The impact of the peer review of literature search strategies in support of rapid review reports.
    Spry C; Mierzwinski-Urban M
    Res Synth Methods; 2018 Dec; 9(4):521-526. PubMed ID: 30408843
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Developing search strategies for detecting high quality reviews in a hypertext test collection.
    Zacks MP; Hersh WR
    Proc AMIA Symp; 1998; ():663-7. PubMed ID: 9929302
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.