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 *

370 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28487158)

  • 41. USING THE AMSTAR CHECKLIST FOR RAPID REVIEWS: IS IT FEASIBLE?
    Mattivi JT; Buchberger B
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2016 Jan; 32(4):276-283. PubMed ID: 27751191
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Summarising the Evidence for Drug Safety: A Methodological Discussion of Different Meta-Analysis Approaches.
    Prada-Ramallal G; Takkouche B; Figueiras A
    Drug Saf; 2017 Jul; 40(7):547-558. PubMed ID: 28299611
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. A methodological review of recent meta-analyses has found significant heterogeneity in age between randomized groups.
    Clark L; Fairhurst C; Hewitt CE; Birks Y; Brabyn S; Cockayne S; Rodgers S; Hicks K; Hodgson R; Littlewood E; Torgerson DJ
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2014 Sep; 67(9):1016-24. PubMed ID: 24909873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Reporting of adverse events in systematic reviews can be improved: survey results.
    Hopewell S; Wolfenden L; Clarke M
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Jun; 61(6):597-602. PubMed ID: 18411039
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. 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]  

  • 46. There were large discrepancies in risk of bias tool judgments when a randomized controlled trial appeared in more than one systematic review.
    Jordan VM; Lensen SF; Farquhar CM
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2017 Jan; 81():72-76. PubMed ID: 27622779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Choosing wisely between randomized controlled trials and observational designs in studies about interventions.
    Ferreira JC; Patino CM
    J Bras Pneumol; 2016; 42(3):165. PubMed ID: 27383927
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. The revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) showed low interrater reliability and challenges in its application.
    Minozzi S; Cinquini M; Gianola S; Gonzalez-Lorenzo M; Banzi R
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2020 Oct; 126():37-44. PubMed ID: 32562833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. [ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed.].
    Whiting P; Savović J; Higgins JPT; Caldwell DM; Reeves BC; Shea B; Davies P; Kleijnen J; Churchill R;
    Recenti Prog Med; 2018 Sep; 109(9):421-431. PubMed ID: 30303184
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.
    Shea BJ; Grimshaw JM; Wells GA; Boers M; Andersson N; Hamel C; Porter AC; Tugwell P; Moher D; Bouter LM
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2007 Feb; 7():10. PubMed ID: 17302989
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Observational studies - should we simply ignore them in assessing transfusion outcomes?
    Trentino K; Farmer S; Gross I; Shander A; Isbister J
    BMC Anesthesiol; 2016 Oct; 16(1):96. PubMed ID: 27741940
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Drug safety assessment in clinical trials: methodological challenges and opportunities.
    Singh S; Loke YK
    Trials; 2012 Aug; 13():138. PubMed ID: 22906139
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. The PRECIS-2 tool has good interrater reliability and modest discriminant validity.
    Loudon K; Zwarenstein M; Sullivan FM; Donnan PT; Gágyor I; Hobbelen HJSM; Althabe F; Krishnan JA; Treweek S
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2017 Aug; 88():113-121. PubMed ID: 28603007
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study.
    Hartling L; Ospina M; Liang Y; Dryden DM; Hooton N; Krebs Seida J; Klassen TP
    BMJ; 2009 Oct; 339():b4012. PubMed ID: 19841007
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Testing the Newcastle Ottawa Scale showed low reliability between individual reviewers.
    Hartling L; Milne A; Hamm MP; Vandermeer B; Ansari M; Tsertsvadze A; Dryden DM
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2013 Sep; 66(9):982-93. PubMed ID: 23683848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. A psychometric study found AMSTAR 2 to be a valid and moderately reliable appraisal tool.
    Lorenz RC; Matthias K; Pieper D; Wegewitz U; Morche J; Nocon M; Rissling O; Schirm J; Jacobs A
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2019 Oct; 114():133-140. PubMed ID: 31152864
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Critical appraisal in rapid systematic reviews of COVID-19 studies: implementation of the Quality Criteria Checklist (QCC).
    Duval D; Pearce-Smith N; Palmer JC; Sarfo-Annin JK; Rudd P; Clark R
    Syst Rev; 2023 Mar; 12(1):55. PubMed ID: 36973811
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. The ROBINS-I and the NOS had similar reliability but differed in applicability: A random sampling observational studies of systematic reviews/meta-analysis.
    Zhang Y; Huang L; Wang D; Ren P; Hong Q; Kang D
    J Evid Based Med; 2021 May; 14(2):112-122. PubMed ID: 34002466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Inadequate statistical power to detect clinically significant differences in adverse event rates in randomized controlled trials.
    Tsang R; Colley L; Lynd LD
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Jun; 62(6):609-16. PubMed ID: 19013761
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 19.