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 *

103 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28975601)

  • 1. Restrictive or responsive? Outcome classification and unplanned sub-group analyses in meta-analyses.
    Heesen M; Klimek M; Hoeks SE
    Anaesthesia; 2018 Mar; 73(3):279-283. PubMed ID: 28975601
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Cochrane's risk of bias tool in the context of psychotherapy outcome research.
    Munder T; Barth J
    Psychother Res; 2018 May; 28(3):347-355. PubMed ID: 29224503
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Trial sequential analyses of meta-analyses of complications in laparoscopic vs. small-incision cholecystectomy: more randomized patients are needed.
    Keus F; Wetterslev J; Gluud C; Gooszen HG; van Laarhoven CJ
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2010 Mar; 63(3):246-56. PubMed ID: 20004553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Important outcome predictors showed greater baseline heterogeneity than age in two systematic reviews.
    Clark L; Fairhurst C; Cook E; Torgerson DJ
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 Feb; 68(2):175-81. PubMed ID: 25457029
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Researcher allegiance in psychotherapy outcome research: an overview of reviews.
    Munder T; Brütsch O; Leonhart R; Gerger H; Barth J
    Clin Psychol Rev; 2013 Jun; 33(4):501-11. PubMed ID: 23500154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Errors in the conduct of systematic reviews of pharmacological interventions for irritable bowel syndrome.
    Ford AC; Guyatt GH; Talley NJ; Moayyedi P
    Am J Gastroenterol; 2010 Feb; 105(2):280-8. PubMed ID: 19920807
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Research Pearls: The Significance of Statistics and Perils of Pooling. Part 3: Pearls and Pitfalls of Meta-analyses and Systematic Reviews.
    Harris JD; Brand JC; Cote MP; Dhawan A
    Arthroscopy; 2017 Aug; 33(8):1594-1602. PubMed ID: 28457677
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. A meta-epidemiological study to examine the association between bias and treatment effects in neonatal trials.
    Bialy L; Vandermeer B; Lacaze-Masmonteil T; Dryden DM; Hartling L
    Evid Based Child Health; 2014 Dec; 9(4):1052-9. PubMed ID: 25504975
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. On the criteria used for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials included in systematic reviews and meta-analyses addressing adverse effects.
    Bonovas S; Lytras T; Nikolopoulos G
    Eur J Epidemiol; 2015 Mar; 30(3):249-50. PubMed ID: 25773753
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Summation of the conference.
    Doll R
    Ann N Y Acad Sci; 1993 Dec; 703():310-3. PubMed ID: 8192312
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Challenges of meta-analyses pooling non-randomized controlled studies.
    Lotrionte M; Biondi-Zoccai GG; Sheiban I
    Am J Cardiol; 2008 Mar; 101(5):743. PubMed ID: 18308031
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Reporting and handling missing outcome data in mental health: a systematic review of Cochrane systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
    Spineli LM; Pandis N; Salanti G
    Res Synth Methods; 2015 Jun; 6(2):175-87. PubMed ID: 26099485
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Identification and impact of outcome selection bias in meta-analysis.
    Williamson PR; Gamble C
    Stat Med; 2005 May; 24(10):1547-61. PubMed ID: 15580591
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Economic evaluation of adult rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in a variety of settings.
    Brusco NK; Taylor NF; Watts JJ; Shields N
    Arch Phys Med Rehabil; 2014 Jan; 95(1):94-116.e4. PubMed ID: 23562414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Investigating patient exclusion bias in meta-analysis.
    Tierney JF; Stewart LA
    Int J Epidemiol; 2005 Feb; 34(1):79-87. PubMed ID: 15561753
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Benefits and harms of red blood cell transfusions in patients with septic shock in the intensive care unit.
    Holst LB
    Dan Med J; 2016 Feb; 63(2):. PubMed ID: 26836806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Ratio of means for analyzing continuous outcomes in meta-analysis performed as well as mean difference methods.
    Friedrich JO; Adhikari NK; Beyene J
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2011 May; 64(5):556-64. PubMed ID: 21447428
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Outcomes of restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategies in older adults from nine randomised controlled trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Simon GI; Craswell A; Thom O; Fung YL
    Lancet Haematol; 2017 Oct; 4(10):e465-e474. PubMed ID: 28919087
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.