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 *

213 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28694122)

  • 1. The risk of bias in systematic reviews tool showed fair reliability and good construct validity.
    Bühn S; Mathes T; Prengel P; Wegewitz U; Ostermann T; Robens S; Pieper D
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2017 Nov; 91():121-128. PubMed ID: 28694122
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Minor differences were found between AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS in the assessment of systematic reviews including both randomized and nonrandomized studies.
    Pieper D; Puljak L; González-Lorenzo M; Minozzi S
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2019 Apr; 108():26-33. PubMed ID: 30543911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Quality assessment versus risk of bias in systematic reviews: AMSTAR and ROBIS had similar reliability but differed in their construct and applicability.
    Banzi R; Cinquini M; Gonzalez-Lorenzo M; Pecoraro V; Capobussi M; Minozzi S
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2018 Jul; 99():24-32. PubMed ID: 29526556
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Evaluation of the reliability, usability, and applicability of AMSTAR, AMSTAR 2, and ROBIS: protocol for a descriptive analytic study.
    Gates A; Gates M; Duarte G; Cary M; Becker M; Prediger B; Vandermeer B; Fernandes RM; Pieper D; Hartling L
    Syst Rev; 2018 Jun; 7(1):85. PubMed ID: 29898777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Most systematic reviews of high methodological quality on psoriasis interventions are classified as high risk of bias using ROBIS tool.
    Gómez-García F; Ruano J; Gay-Mimbrera J; Aguilar-Luque M; Sanz-Cabanillas JL; Alcalde-Mellado P; Maestre-López B; Carmona-Fernández PJ; González-Padilla M; García-Nieto AV; Isla-Tejera B
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2017 Dec; 92():79-88. PubMed ID: 28893571
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Measuring test-retest reliability (TRR) of AMSTAR provides moderate to perfect agreement - a contribution to the discussion of the importance of TRR in relation to the psychometric properties of assessment tools.
    Bühn S; Ober P; Mathes T; Wegewitz U; Jacobs A; Pieper D
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 Mar; 21(1):51. PubMed ID: 33706710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Quality and risk of bias appraisals of systematic reviews are inconsistent across reviewers and centers.
    Gates M; Gates A; Duarte G; Cary M; Becker M; Prediger B; Vandermeer B; Fernandes RM; Pieper D; Hartling L
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2020 Sep; 125():9-15. PubMed ID: 32416337
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A comparison of two assessment tools used in overviews of systematic reviews: ROBIS versus AMSTAR-2.
    Perry R; Whitmarsh A; Leach V; Davies P
    Syst Rev; 2021 Oct; 10(1):273. PubMed ID: 34696810
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Similarities, reliability and gaps in assessing the quality of conduct of systematic reviews using AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS: systematic survey of nutrition reviews.
    Swierz MJ; Storman D; Zajac J; Koperny M; Weglarz P; Staskiewicz W; Gorecka M; Skuza A; Wach A; Kaluzinska K; Bochenek-Cibor J; Johnston BC; Bala MM
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 Nov; 21(1):261. PubMed ID: 34837960
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Quality Assessment and Risk of Bias of Systematic Reviews of Prophylactic Mesh for Parastomal Hernia Prevention Using AMSTAR and ROBIS Tools.
    García-Alamino JM; López-Cano M; Kroese L; Helgstrand F; Muysoms F
    World J Surg; 2019 Dec; 43(12):3003-3012. PubMed ID: 31440779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Inter-rater reliability of AMSTAR is dependent on the pair of reviewers.
    Pieper D; Jacobs A; Weikert B; Fishta A; Wegewitz U
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Jul; 17(1):98. PubMed ID: 28693497
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparison of methodological quality rating of systematic reviews on neuropathic pain using AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR.
    Dosenovic S; Jelicic Kadic A; Vucic K; Markovina N; Pieper D; Puljak L
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2018 May; 18(1):37. PubMed ID: 29739339
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Predictors of Higher Quality of Systematic Reviews Addressing Nutrition and Cancer Prevention.
    Storman D; Koperny M; Zając J; Polak M; Weglarz P; Bochenek-Cibor J; Swierz MJ; Staskiewicz W; Gorecka M; Skuza A; Wach AA; Kaluzinska K; Bała MM
    Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2022 Jan; 19(1):. PubMed ID: 35010766
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Methodological quality and risk of bias in orthodontic systematic reviews using AMSTAR and ROBIS.
    Hooper EJ; Pandis N; Cobourne MT; Seehra J
    Eur J Orthod; 2021 Oct; 43(5):544-550. PubMed ID: 33723612
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.
    Shea BJ; Hamel C; Wells GA; Bouter LM; Kristjansson E; Grimshaw J; Henry DA; Boers M
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Oct; 62(10):1013-20. PubMed ID: 19230606
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [Assessment of reliability and validity of assessment of multiple systematic reviews in Chinese systematic reviews on stomatology].
    Su N; Lü J; Li C; Chen L; Shi Z
    Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2013 Feb; 31(1):49-52. PubMed ID: 23484302
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews of interventions aimed at improving vaccination coverage using AMSTAR and ROBIS checklists.
    Jaca A; Ndze VN; Wiysonge CS
    Hum Vaccin Immunother; 2019; 15(12):2824-2835. PubMed ID: 31348722
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Testing the risk of bias tool showed low reliability between individual reviewers and across consensus assessments of reviewer pairs.
    Hartling L; Hamm MP; Milne A; Vandermeer B; Santaguida PL; Ansari M; Tsertsvadze A; Hempel S; Shekelle P; Dryden DM
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2013 Sep; 66(9):973-81. PubMed ID: 22981249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Appraisal of systematic reviews on the management of peri-implant diseases with two methodological tools.
    Faggion CM; Monje A; Wasiak J
    J Clin Periodontol; 2018 Jun; 45(6):754-766. PubMed ID: 29575189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.