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 *

201 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27790686)

  • 1. Moose on the loose: checklist for meta-analyses of observational studies.
    van Zuuren EJ; Fedorowicz Z
    Br J Dermatol; 2016 Nov; 175(5):853-854. PubMed ID: 27790686
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. MOOSE Reporting Guidelines for Meta-analyses of Observational Studies.
    Brooke BS; Schwartz TA; Pawlik TM
    JAMA Surg; 2021 Aug; 156(8):787-788. PubMed ID: 33825847
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: part 6. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies.
    Manchikanti L; Datta S; Smith HS; Hirsch JA
    Pain Physician; 2009; 12(5):819-50. PubMed ID: 19787009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.
    Moher D; Liberati A; Tetzlaff J; Altman DG;
    Int J Surg; 2010; 8(5):336-41. PubMed ID: 20171303
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Epidemiology, quality and reporting characteristics of meta-analyses of observational studies published in Chinese journals.
    Zhang ZW; Cheng J; Liu Z; Ma JC; Li JL; Wang J; Yang KH
    BMJ Open; 2015 Dec; 5(12):e008066. PubMed ID: 26644119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A new risk of bias checklist applicable to randomized trials, observational studies, and systematic reviews was developed and validated to be used for systematic reviews focusing on drug adverse events.
    Faillie JL; Ferrer P; Gouverneur A; Driot D; Berkemeyer S; Vidal X; Martínez-Zapata MJ; Huerta C; Castells X; Rottenkolber M; Schmiedl S; Sabaté M; Ballarín E; Ibáñez L
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2017 Jun; 86():168-175. PubMed ID: 28487158
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Association of study quality with completeness of reporting.
    McInnes M; Tunis AS
    Radiology; 2014 Jul; 272(1):303-4. PubMed ID: 24956054
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [A standardization study of Meta-analyses on nephropathy published in Chinese journals].
    Liu JY; Zhao YL; Zhou QH; Wu YM; Zhou SG; Zhang L; Fu P
    Zhonghua Nei Ke Za Zhi; 2013 Oct; 52(10):833-7. PubMed ID: 24378060
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Reprint--preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.
    Moher D; Liberati A; Tetzlaff J; Altman DG;
    Phys Ther; 2009 Sep; 89(9):873-80. PubMed ID: 19723669
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. PRISMA.
    Blegen MA
    Nurs Res; 2010; 59(4):233. PubMed ID: 20585220
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. JHS guidelines on systematic review and meta-analysis submissions.
    Chung KC
    J Hand Surg Am; 2012 Jun; 37(6):1121-4. PubMed ID: 22624781
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. How well are reporting guidelines and trial registration used by dermatology journals to limit bias? A meta-epidemiological study.
    Cook C; Checketts JX; Atakpo P; Nelson N; Vassar M
    Br J Dermatol; 2018 Jun; 178(6):1433-1434. PubMed ID: 29150841
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Methodological quality, completeness of reporting and use of systematic reviews as evidence in clinical practice guidelines for paediatric overweight and obesity.
    Nissen T; Wayant C; Wahlstrom A; Sinnett P; Fugate C; Herrington J; Vassar M
    Clin Obes; 2017 Feb; 7(1):34-45. PubMed ID: 28112500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A suggestion for quality assessment in systematic reviews of observational studies in nutritional epidemiology.
    Bae JM
    Epidemiol Health; 2016; 38():e2016014. PubMed ID: 27156344
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.
    Moher D; Liberati A; Tetzlaff J; Altman DG;
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Oct; 62(10):1006-12. PubMed ID: 19631508
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Use of the STROBE Checklist to Evaluate the Reporting Quality of Observational Research in Obstetrics.
    Adams AD; Benner RS; Riggs TW; Chescheir NC
    Obstet Gynecol; 2018 Aug; 132(2):507-512. PubMed ID: 29995749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [Appraisal of meta-analysis manuscripts on eye diseases published in Chinese journals with QUOROM statement and MOOSE guidelines].
    Zhu MM; Zou HD
    Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi; 2011 Aug; 47(8):732-7. PubMed ID: 22169614
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Fixed or random effects meta-analysis? Common methodological issues in systematic reviews of effectiveness.
    Tufanaru C; Munn Z; Stephenson M; Aromataris E
    Int J Evid Based Healthc; 2015 Sep; 13(3):196-207. PubMed ID: 26355603
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Checklists are not only for the operating room.
    Connor S
    ANZ J Surg; 2013 Oct; 83(10):704-5. PubMed ID: 24251321
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Research Pearls: Checklists and Flowcharts to Improve Research Quality.
    Brand J; Hardy R; Monroe E
    Arthroscopy; 2020 Jul; 36(7):2030-2038. PubMed ID: 32169662
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.