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 *

118 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26808601)

  • 1. Re: Is the Risk Difference Really a More Heterogeneous Measure?
    Schmidt AF; Dudbridge F; Groenwold RH
    Epidemiology; 2016 May; 27(3):e12. PubMed ID: 26808601
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Is the Risk Difference Really a More Heterogeneous Measure?
    Poole C; Shrier I; VanderWeele TJ
    Epidemiology; 2015 Sep; 26(5):714-8. PubMed ID: 26196684
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Heterogeneous views on heterogeneity.
    Patsopoulos NA; Evangelou E; Ioannidis JP
    Int J Epidemiol; 2009 Dec; 38(6):1740-2. PubMed ID: 18940836
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Re: "A critical look at some popular meta-analytic methods".
    Olkin I
    Am J Epidemiol; 1994 Aug; 140(3):297-9; discussion 300-1. PubMed ID: 8048979
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Meta-analysis for orthodontists: Part I--How to choose effect measure and statistical model.
    Papageorgiou SN
    J Orthod; 2014 Dec; 41(4):317-26. PubMed ID: 25404668
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Advances in the meta-analysis of heterogeneous clinical trials II: The quality effects model.
    Doi SA; Barendregt JJ; Khan S; Thalib L; Williams GM
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2015 Nov; 45(Pt A):123-9. PubMed ID: 26003432
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The statistical basis of meta-analysis.
    Fleiss JL
    Stat Methods Med Res; 1993; 2(2):121-45. PubMed ID: 8261254
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Meta-analyses in systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in perinatal medicine: comparison of fixed and random effects models.
    Villar J; Mackey ME; Carroli G; Donner A
    Stat Med; 2001 Dec; 20(23):3635-47. PubMed ID: 11746343
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Data-generating models of dichotomous outcomes: Heterogeneity in simulation studies for a random-effects meta-analysis.
    Pateras K; Nikolakopoulos S; Roes K
    Stat Med; 2018 Mar; 37(7):1115-1124. PubMed ID: 29230852
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. How meta-analysis increases statistical power.
    Cohn LD; Becker BJ
    Psychol Methods; 2003 Sep; 8(3):243-53. PubMed ID: 14596489
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Meta-analysis and evidence.
    Goodman SN
    Control Clin Trials; 1989 Jun; 10(2):188-204. PubMed ID: 2666026
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A model for incorporating historical controls into a meta-analysis.
    Begg CB; Pilote L
    Biometrics; 1991 Sep; 47(3):899-906. PubMed ID: 1742445
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Meta-analysis methods for risk differences.
    Bonett DG; Price RM
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2014 Nov; 67(3):371-87. PubMed ID: 23962020
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A simplification and implementation of random-effects meta-analyses based on the exact distribution of Cochran's Q.
    Preuß M; Ziegler A
    Methods Inf Med; 2014; 53(1):54-61. PubMed ID: 24317521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Overlap between treatment and control distributions as an effect size measure in experiments.
    Hedges LV; Olkin I
    Psychol Methods; 2016 Mar; 21(1):61-8. PubMed ID: 26523436
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The Authors Respond.
    Poole C; Shrier I; Ding P; VanderWeele T
    Epidemiology; 2016 May; 27(3):e12-3. PubMed ID: 26808604
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Use of re-randomized data in meta-analysis.
    Hozo I; Djulbegovic B; Clark O; Lyman GH
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2005 May; 5():17. PubMed ID: 15882470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Why add anything to nothing? The arcsine difference as a measure of treatment effect in meta-analysis with zero cells.
    Rücker G; Schwarzer G; Carpenter J; Olkin I
    Stat Med; 2009 Feb; 28(5):721-38. PubMed ID: 19072749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A Bayesian sensitivity study of risk difference in the meta-analysis of binary outcomes from sparse data.
    Vázquez-Polo FJ; Moreno E; Negrín MA; Martel M
    Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res; 2015 Apr; 15(2):317-22. PubMed ID: 25673174
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.