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 *

312 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27259973)

  • 1. Accounting for heterogeneity in meta-analysis using a multiplicative model-an empirical study.
    Mawdsley D; Higgins JP; Sutton AJ; Abrams KR
    Res Synth Methods; 2017 Mar; 8(1):43-52. PubMed ID: 27259973
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Empirical evaluation showed that the Copas selection model provided a useful summary in 80% of meta-analyses.
    Carpenter JR; Schwarzer G; Rücker G; Künstler R
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Jun; 62(6):624-631.e4. PubMed ID: 19282148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Empirical evidence about inconsistency among studies in a pair-wise meta-analysis.
    Rhodes KM; Turner RM; Higgins JP
    Res Synth Methods; 2016 Dec; 7(4):346-370. PubMed ID: 26679486
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Confidence intervals for random effects meta-analysis and robustness to publication bias.
    Henmi M; Copas JB
    Stat Med; 2010 Dec; 29(29):2969-83. PubMed ID: 20963748
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. [The practice of systematic reviews. V. Heterogeneity between studies and subgroup analysis].
    Scholten RJ; Assendelft WJ; Kostense PJ; Bouter LM
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1999 Apr; 143(16):843-8. PubMed ID: 10347653
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Neither fixed nor random: weighted least squares meta-regression.
    Stanley TD; Doucouliagos H
    Res Synth Methods; 2017 Mar; 8(1):19-42. PubMed ID: 27322495
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Multiplicative interaction in network meta-analysis.
    Piepho HP; Madden LV; Williams ER
    Stat Med; 2015 Feb; 34(4):582-94. PubMed ID: 25410043
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Comparison of statistical inferences from the DerSimonian-Laird and alternative random-effects model meta-analyses - an empirical assessment of 920 Cochrane primary outcome meta-analyses.
    Thorlund K; Wetterslev J; Awad T; Thabane L; Gluud C
    Res Synth Methods; 2011 Dec; 2(4):238-53. PubMed ID: 26061888
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Random-effects models for meta-analytic structural equation modeling: review, issues, and illustrations.
    Cheung MW; Cheung SF
    Res Synth Methods; 2016 Jun; 7(2):140-55. PubMed ID: 27286900
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Random effects meta-analysis: Coverage performance of 95% confidence and prediction intervals following REML estimation.
    Partlett C; Riley RD
    Stat Med; 2017 Jan; 36(2):301-317. PubMed ID: 27714841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. An empirical comparison of univariate and multivariate meta-analyses for categorical outcomes.
    Trikalinos TA; Hoaglin DC; Schmid CH
    Stat Med; 2014 Apr; 33(9):1441-59. PubMed ID: 24285290
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Beta-binomial model for meta-analysis of odds ratios.
    Bakbergenuly I; Kulinskaya E
    Stat Med; 2017 May; 36(11):1715-1734. PubMed ID: 28124446
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A new measure of between-studies heterogeneity in meta-analysis.
    Crippa A; Khudyakov P; Wang M; Orsini N; Spiegelman D
    Stat Med; 2016 Sep; 35(21):3661-75. PubMed ID: 27161124
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Trial sequential methods for meta-analysis.
    Kulinskaya E; Wood J
    Res Synth Methods; 2014 Sep; 5(3):212-20. PubMed ID: 26052847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Meta-analytic interval estimation for standardized and unstandardized mean differences.
    Bonett DG
    Psychol Methods; 2009 Sep; 14(3):225-38. PubMed ID: 19719359
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The appropriateness of asymmetry tests for publication bias in meta-analyses: a large survey.
    Ioannidis JP; Trikalinos TA
    CMAJ; 2007 Apr; 176(8):1091-6. PubMed ID: 17420491
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 16.