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 *

217 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27072548)

  • 1. Limitations of A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and suggestions for improvement.
    Burda BU; Holmer HK; Norris SL
    Syst Rev; 2016 Apr; 5():58. PubMed ID: 27072548
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Methodological quality of systematic reviews referenced in clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of opioid use disorder.
    Ross A; Rankin J; Beaman J; Murray K; Sinnett P; Riddle R; Haskins J; Vassar M
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(8):e0181927. PubMed ID: 28771633
    [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. Evaluation of the reliability, usability, and applicability of AMSTAR, AMSTAR 2, and ROBIS: protocol for a descriptive analytic study.
    Gates A; Gates M; Duarte G; Cary M; Becker M; Prediger B; Vandermeer B; Fernandes RM; Pieper D; Hartling L
    Syst Rev; 2018 Jun; 7(1):85. PubMed ID: 29898777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Methodological quality of systematic reviews on influenza vaccination.
    Remschmidt C; Wichmann O; Harder T
    Vaccine; 2014 Mar; 32(15):1678-84. PubMed ID: 24513008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review.
    Zeng X; Zhang Y; Kwong JS; Zhang C; Li S; Sun F; Niu Y; Du L
    J Evid Based Med; 2015 Feb; 8(1):2-10. PubMed ID: 25594108
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparison of methodological quality rating of systematic reviews on neuropathic pain using AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR.
    Dosenovic S; Jelicic Kadic A; Vucic K; Markovina N; Pieper D; Puljak L
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2018 May; 18(1):37. PubMed ID: 29739339
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Similarities, reliability and gaps in assessing the quality of conduct of systematic reviews using AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS: systematic survey of nutrition reviews.
    Swierz MJ; Storman D; Zajac J; Koperny M; Weglarz P; Staskiewicz W; Gorecka M; Skuza A; Wach A; Kaluzinska K; Bochenek-Cibor J; Johnston BC; Bala MM
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 Nov; 21(1):261. PubMed ID: 34837960
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Quality of conduct and reporting in rapid reviews: an exploration of compliance with PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines.
    Kelly SE; Moher D; Clifford TJ
    Syst Rev; 2016 May; 5():79. PubMed ID: 27160255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [Assessment of reliability and validity of assessment of multiple systematic reviews in Chinese systematic reviews on stomatology].
    Su N; Lü J; Li C; Chen L; Shi Z
    Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2013 Feb; 31(1):49-52. PubMed ID: 23484302
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Systematic Reviews in Sports Medicine.
    DiSilvestro KJ; Tjoumakaris FP; Maltenfort MG; Spindler KP; Freedman KB
    Am J Sports Med; 2016 Feb; 44(2):533-8. PubMed ID: 25899433
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Critical appraisal of AMSTAR: challenges, limitations, and potential solutions from the perspective of an assessor.
    Faggion CM
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2015 Aug; 15():63. PubMed ID: 26268372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Quality and risk of bias appraisals of systematic reviews are inconsistent across reviewers and centers.
    Gates M; Gates A; Duarte G; Cary M; Becker M; Prediger B; Vandermeer B; Fernandes RM; Pieper D; Hartling L
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2020 Sep; 125():9-15. PubMed ID: 32416337
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Methodological quality of systematic reviews in subfertility: a comparison of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in assisted reproductive technologies.
    Windsor B; Popovich I; Jordan V; Showell M; Shea B; Farquhar C
    Hum Reprod; 2012 Dec; 27(12):3460-6. PubMed ID: 23034152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The future of Cochrane Neonatal.
    Soll RF; Ovelman C; McGuire W
    Early Hum Dev; 2020 Nov; 150():105191. PubMed ID: 33036834
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Methodological quality of systematic reviews in subfertility: a comparison of two different approaches.
    Popovich I; Windsor B; Jordan V; Showell M; Shea B; Farquhar CM
    PLoS One; 2012; 7(12):e50403. PubMed ID: 23300526
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Quality assessment of systematic reviews on periodontal regeneration in humans.
    Elangovan S; Avila-Ortiz G; Johnson GK; Karimbux N; Allareddy V
    J Periodontol; 2013 Feb; 84(2):176-85. PubMed ID: 22509753
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Systematic reviews published in higher impact clinical journals were of higher quality.
    Fleming PS; Koletsi D; Seehra J; Pandis N
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2014 Jul; 67(7):754-9. PubMed ID: 24709031
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.