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 *

119 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27487844)

  • 41. Meta-DiSc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data.
    Zamora J; Abraira V; Muriel A; Khan K; Coomarasamy A
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2006 Jul; 6():31. PubMed ID: 16836745
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Systematic reviews of studies quantifying the accuracy of diagnostic tests and markers.
    Reitsma JB; Moons KG; Bossuyt PM; Linnet K
    Clin Chem; 2012 Nov; 58(11):1534-45. PubMed ID: 22991421
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. A comparison of univariate and bivariate models in meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies.
    Foxlee N; Stone JC; Doi SA
    Int J Evid Based Healthc; 2015 Mar; 13(1):28-34. PubMed ID: 25734862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies with multiple thresholds using survival methods.
    Putter H; Fiocco M; Stijnen T
    Biom J; 2010 Feb; 52(1):95-110. PubMed ID: 19924701
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Multivariate random effects meta-analysis of diagnostic tests with multiple thresholds.
    Hamza TH; Arends LR; van Houwelingen HC; Stijnen T
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2009 Nov; 9():73. PubMed ID: 19903336
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Meta-analysis of diagnostic tests accounting for disease prevalence: a new model using trivariate copulas.
    Hoyer A; Kuss O
    Stat Med; 2015 May; 34(11):1912-24. PubMed ID: 25712874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity with sparse data: a generalized linear mixed model approach.
    Chu H; Cole SR
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2006 Dec; 59(12):1331-2; author reply 1332-3. PubMed ID: 17098577
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Application of treatment thresholds to diagnostic-test evaluation: an alternative to the comparison of areas under receiver operating characteristic curves.
    Moons KG; Stijnen T; Michel BC; Büller HR; Van Es GA; Grobbee DE; Habbema JD
    Med Decis Making; 1997; 17(4):447-54. PubMed ID: 9343803
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. A composite likelihood method for bivariate meta-analysis in diagnostic systematic reviews.
    Chen Y; Liu Y; Ning J; Nie L; Zhu H; Chu H
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2017 Apr; 26(2):914-930. PubMed ID: 25512146
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Validation of the summary ROC for diagnostic test meta-analysis: a Monte Carlo simulation.
    Mitchell MD
    Acad Radiol; 2003 Jan; 10(1):25-31. PubMed ID: 12529025
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Empirical Bayes estimates generated in a hierarchical summary ROC analysis agreed closely with those of a full Bayesian analysis.
    Macaskill P
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2004 Sep; 57(9):925-32. PubMed ID: 15504635
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy.
    Leeflang MM
    Clin Microbiol Infect; 2014 Feb; 20(2):105-13. PubMed ID: 24274632
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Polymerase chain reaction blood tests for the diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis in immunocompromised people.
    Cruciani M; Mengoli C; Loeffler J; Donnelly P; Barnes R; Jones BL; Klingspor L; Morton O; Maertens J
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2015 Sep; (9):CD009551. PubMed ID: 26343815
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. A multivariate method for meta-analysis and comparison of diagnostic tests.
    Dimou NL; Adam M; Bagos PG
    Stat Med; 2016 Sep; 35(20):3509-23. PubMed ID: 26940666
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Sensitivity analysis for publication bias in meta-analysis of diagnostic studies for a continuous biomarker.
    Hattori S; Zhou XH
    Stat Med; 2018 Feb; 37(3):327-342. PubMed ID: 28990209
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies with multiple thresholds: Comparison of different approaches.
    Zapf A; Albert C; Frömke C; Haase M; Hoyer A; Jones HE; Rücker G
    Biom J; 2021 Apr; 63(4):699-711. PubMed ID: 33475187
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies With Multiple Thresholds: Comparison of Approaches in a Simulation Study.
    Zapf A; Frömke C; Hardt J; Rücker G; Voeltz D; Hoyer A
    Biom J; 2024 Oct; 66(7):e202300101. PubMed ID: 39330620
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Nonparametric meta-analysis for diagnostic accuracy studies.
    Zapf A; Hoyer A; Kramer K; Kuss O
    Stat Med; 2015 Dec; 34(29):3831-41. PubMed ID: 26174020
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. [A methodology study on assessment of cancer screening test].
    Gao GF; Zhao FH; Wu YP; Rong SD; Zhang WH; Pan QJ; Li L; Qiao YL
    Zhongguo Yi Xue Ke Xue Yuan Xue Bao; 2002 Dec; 24(6):573-6. PubMed ID: 12905682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Bayesian meta-analysis of diagnostic tests allowing for imperfect reference standards.
    Menten J; Boelaert M; Lesaffre E
    Stat Med; 2013 Dec; 32(30):5398-413. PubMed ID: 24003003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.