151 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26917469)
1. [Network meta-analyses: Interest and limits in oncology].
Ribassin-Majed L; Pignon JP; Michiels S; Blanchard P
Bull Cancer; 2016 Mar; 103(3):289-93. PubMed ID: 26917469
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A comparison of national guidelines for network meta-analysis.
Laws A; Kendall R; Hawkins N
Value Health; 2014 Jul; 17(5):642-54. PubMed ID: 25128059
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2.
Hoaglin DC; Hawkins N; Jansen JP; Scott DA; Itzler R; Cappelleri JC; Boersma C; Thompson D; Larholt KM; Diaz M; Barrett A
Value Health; 2011 Jun; 14(4):429-37. PubMed ID: 21669367
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. [Introduction to the indirect meta-analyses].
Bolaños Díaz R; Calderón Cahua M
Rev Gastroenterol Peru; 2014 Apr; 34(2):151-4. PubMed ID: 25028908
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. [Individual patient data meta-analyses of randomized trials for the treatment of non-metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinomas: Principles, results and perspectives].
Blanchard P; Bourhis J; Lacas B; Le Teuff G; Michiels S; Pignon JP
Cancer Radiother; 2015 May; 19(3):198-204; quiz 228-9, 233. PubMed ID: 25858708
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 1.
Jansen JP; Fleurence R; Devine B; Itzler R; Barrett A; Hawkins N; Lee K; Boersma C; Annemans L; Cappelleri JC
Value Health; 2011 Jun; 14(4):417-28. PubMed ID: 21669366
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Network meta-analysis incorporating randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative cohort studies for assessing the safety and effectiveness of medical treatments: challenges and opportunities.
Cameron C; Fireman B; Hutton B; Clifford T; Coyle D; Wells G; Dormuth CR; Platt R; Toh S
Syst Rev; 2015 Nov; 4():147. PubMed ID: 26537988
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Use of generalized linear mixed models for network meta-analysis.
Tu YK
Med Decis Making; 2014 Oct; 34(7):911-8. PubMed ID: 25260872
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparative effectiveness of antibiotics for uncomplicated urinary tract infections: network meta-analysis of randomized trials.
Knottnerus BJ; Grigoryan L; Geerlings SE; Moll van Charante EP; Verheij TJ; Kessels AG; ter Riet G
Fam Pract; 2012 Dec; 29(6):659-70. PubMed ID: 22516128
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Graphical exploration of network meta-analysis data: the use of multidimensional scaling.
Chung H; Lumley T
Clin Trials; 2008; 5(4):301-7. PubMed ID: 18697844
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses.
Song F; Altman DG; Glenny AM; Deeks JJ
BMJ; 2003 Mar; 326(7387):472. PubMed ID: 12609941
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Is network meta-analysis as valid as standard pairwise meta-analysis? It all depends on the distribution of effect modifiers.
Jansen JP; Naci H
BMC Med; 2013 Jul; 11():159. PubMed ID: 23826681
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Adjusted indirect comparison may be less biased than direct comparison for evaluating new pharmaceutical interventions.
Song F; Harvey I; Lilford R
J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 May; 61(5):455-63. PubMed ID: 18394538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Indirect comparisons of treatments based on systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials.
Edwards SJ; Clarke MJ; Wordsworth S; Borrill J
Int J Clin Pract; 2009 Jun; 63(6):841-54. PubMed ID: 19490195
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The prevalence and effect of publication bias in orthopaedic meta-analyses.
Vavken P; Dorotka R
J Orthop Sci; 2011 Mar; 16(2):238-44. PubMed ID: 21360256
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Updating meta-analyses leads to larger type I errors than publication bias.
Borm GF; Donders AR
J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Aug; 62(8):825-830.e10. PubMed ID: 19136233
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A graphical method for exploring heterogeneity in meta-analyses: application to a meta-analysis of 65 trials.
Baujat B; Mahé C; Pignon JP; Hill C
Stat Med; 2002 Sep; 21(18):2641-52. PubMed ID: 12228882
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Some methodological points to consider when performing systematic reviews in comparative effectiveness research.
Berlin JA; Cepeda MS
Clin Trials; 2012 Feb; 9(1):27-34. PubMed ID: 22049086
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Analysis of adaptive platform trials using a network approach.
Marschner IC; Schou IM
Clin Trials; 2022 Oct; 19(5):479-489. PubMed ID: 35993542
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparative tolerability and harms of individual statins: a study-level network meta-analysis of 246 955 participants from 135 randomized, controlled trials.
Naci H; Brugts J; Ades T
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes; 2013 Jul; 6(4):390-9. PubMed ID: 23838105
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
