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 *

367 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27287500)

  • 1. Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Bruce R; Chauvin A; Trinquart L; Ravaud P; Boutron I
    BMC Med; 2016 Jun; 14(1):85. PubMed ID: 27287500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A protocol of a cross-sectional study evaluating an online tool for early career peer reviewers assessing reports of randomised controlled trials.
    Chauvin A; Moher D; Altman D; Schriger DL; Alam S; Hopewell S; Shanahan DR; Recchioni A; Ravaud P; Boutron I
    BMJ Open; 2017 Sep; 7(9):e017462. PubMed ID: 28918414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Effects of Experimental Interventions to Improve the Biomedical Peer-Review Process: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
    Gaudino M; Robinson NB; Di Franco A; Hameed I; Naik A; Demetres M; Girardi LN; Frati G; Fremes SE; Biondi-Zoccai G
    J Am Heart Assoc; 2021 Aug; 10(15):e019903. PubMed ID: 34278828
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review.
    Superchi C; González JA; Solà I; Cobo E; Hren D; Boutron I
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Mar; 19(1):48. PubMed ID: 30841850
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The most important tasks for peer reviewers evaluating a randomized controlled trial are not congruent with the tasks most often requested by journal editors.
    Chauvin A; Ravaud P; Baron G; Barnes C; Boutron I
    BMC Med; 2015 Jul; 13():158. PubMed ID: 26141137
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A scoping review of competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals.
    Galipeau J; Barbour V; Baskin P; Bell-Syer S; Cobey K; Cumpston M; Deeks J; Garner P; MacLehose H; Shamseer L; Straus S; Tugwell P; Wager E; Winker M; Moher D
    BMC Med; 2016 Feb; 14():16. PubMed ID: 26837937
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Designs of trials assessing interventions to improve the peer review process: a vignette-based survey.
    Heim A; Ravaud P; Baron G; Boutron I
    BMC Med; 2018 Oct; 16(1):191. PubMed ID: 30318018
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Statistical reviewers improve reporting in biomedical articles: a randomized trial.
    Cobo E; Selva-O'Callagham A; Ribera JM; Cardellach F; Dominguez R; Vilardell M
    PLoS One; 2007 Mar; 2(3):e332. PubMed ID: 17389922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators.
    Justice AC; Cho MK; Winker MA; Berlin JA; Rennie D
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):240-2. PubMed ID: 9676668
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies.
    Jefferson T; Rudin M; Brodney Folse S; Davidoff F
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2007 Apr; 2007(2):MR000016. PubMed ID: 17443635
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Has the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in thoracic surgery improved?
    Edwards JP; Dharampal N; Chung W; Brar MS; Ball CG; Seto J; Grondin SC
    Eur J Cardiothorac Surg; 2016 May; 49(5):1476-82. PubMed ID: 26503723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A systematic review highlights a knowledge gap regarding the effectiveness of health-related training programs in journalology.
    Galipeau J; Moher D; Campbell C; Hendry P; Cameron DW; Palepu A; Hébert PC
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 Mar; 68(3):257-65. PubMed ID: 25510373
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study.
    Hopewell S; Collins GS; Boutron I; Yu LM; Cook J; Shanyinde M; Wharton R; Shamseer L; Altman DG
    BMJ; 2014 Jul; 349():g4145. PubMed ID: 24986891
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Same review quality in open versus blinded peer review in "Ugeskrift for Læger".
    Vinther S; Nielsen OH; Rosenberg J; Keiding N; Schroeder TV
    Dan Med J; 2012 Aug; 59(8):A4479. PubMed ID: 22849979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Effectiveness of interventions that assist caregivers to support people with dementia living in the community: a systematic review.
    Parker D; Mills S; Abbey J
    Int J Evid Based Healthc; 2008 Jun; 6(2):137-72. PubMed ID: 21631819
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals.
    Gasparyan AY; Kitas GD
    Croat Med J; 2012 Aug; 53(4):386-9. PubMed ID: 22911533
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review.
    Haffar S; Bazerbachi F; Murad MH
    Mayo Clin Proc; 2019 Apr; 94(4):670-676. PubMed ID: 30797567
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals.
    Baggs JG; Broome ME; Dougherty MC; Freda MC; Kearney MH
    J Adv Nurs; 2008 Oct; 64(2):131-8. PubMed ID: 18764847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 19.