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 *

141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28863987)

  • 41. Beyond integrating social sciences: Reflecting on the place of life sciences in empirical bioethics methodologies.
    Mertz M; Schildmann J
    Med Health Care Philos; 2018 Jun; 21(2):207-214. PubMed ID: 28733796
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. A research roadmap for complementary and alternative medicine - what we need to know by 2020.
    Fischer F; Lewith G; Witt CM; Linde K; von Ammon K; Cardini F; Falkenberg T; Fønnebø V; Johannessen H; Reiter B; Uehleke B; Weidenhammer W; Brinkhaus B
    Forsch Komplementmed; 2014; 21(2):e1-16. PubMed ID: 24851850
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: part 3: systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials.
    Manchikanti L; Benyamin RM; Helm S; Hirsch JA
    Pain Physician; 2009; 12(1):35-72. PubMed ID: 19165297
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Challenges in teaching systematic reviews to non-clinicians.
    Pieper D; Müller D; Stock S
    Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes; 2019 Nov; 147-148():1-6. PubMed ID: 31734093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Telemedicine in palliative care: a review of systematic reviews.
    Rogante M; Giacomozzi C; Grigioni M; Kairy D
    Ann Ist Super Sanita; 2016; 52(3):434-442. PubMed ID: 27698303
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Critical appraisal in ecology: What tools are available, and what is being used in systematic reviews?
    Stanhope J; Weinstein P
    Res Synth Methods; 2023 May; 14(3):342-356. PubMed ID: 36303454
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Using empirical research to formulate normative ethical principles in biomedicine.
    Ebbesen M; Pedersen BD
    Med Health Care Philos; 2007 Mar; 10(1):33-48. PubMed ID: 16955345
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. The assessment and appraisal of regenerative medicines and cell therapy products: an exploration of methods for review, economic evaluation and appraisal.
    Hettle R; Corbett M; Hinde S; Hodgson R; Jones-Diette J; Woolacott N; Palmer S
    Health Technol Assess; 2017 Feb; 21(7):1-204. PubMed ID: 28244858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Systematic reviews of empirical bioethics.
    Strech D; Synofzik M; Marckmann G
    J Med Ethics; 2008 Jun; 34(6):472-7. PubMed ID: 18511623
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Trials and tribulations of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
    Crowther MA; Cook DJ
    Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program; 2007; ():493-7. PubMed ID: 18024670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Evidence-based ethics? On evidence-based practice and the "empirical turn" from normative bioethics.
    Goldenberg MJ
    BMC Med Ethics; 2005 Nov; 6():E11. PubMed ID: 16277663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. [Rapid reviews for evidence-based decision support. (Restricting) requirements].
    Ziegler S; Lühmann D; Raspe H; Windeler J
    Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich; 2001 Feb; 95(2):105-11. PubMed ID: 11268875
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Systematic reviews and meta-analytic techniques.
    Baird R
    Semin Pediatr Surg; 2018 Dec; 27(6):338-344. PubMed ID: 30473037
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Making Good Decisions in Healthcare with Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: The Use, Current Research and Future Development of MCDA.
    Mühlbacher AC; Kaczynski A
    Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2016 Feb; 14(1):29-40. PubMed ID: 26519081
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Systematic reviews in laboratory medicine: principles, processes and practical considerations.
    Horvath AR; Pewsner D
    Clin Chim Acta; 2004 Apr; 342(1-2):23-39. PubMed ID: 15026264
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases.
    Song F; Parekh S; Hooper L; Loke YK; Ryder J; Sutton AJ; Hing C; Kwok CS; Pang C; Harvey I
    Health Technol Assess; 2010 Feb; 14(8):iii, ix-xi, 1-193. PubMed ID: 20181324
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. 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]  

  • 58. Reviews in environmental health: How systematic are they?
    Sutton P; Chartres N; Rayasam SDG; Daniels N; Lam J; Maghrbi E; Woodruff TJ
    Environ Int; 2021 Jul; 152():106473. PubMed ID: 33798823
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. The methodological quality of systematic reviews published in high-impact nursing journals: a review of the literature.
    Pölkki T; Kanste O; Kääriäinen M; Elo S; Kyngäs H
    J Clin Nurs; 2014 Feb; 23(3-4):315-32. PubMed ID: 23489745
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.