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 *

243 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29186879)

  • 21. Questionable Research Practices, Low Statistical Power, and Other Obstacles to Replicability: Why Preclinical Neuroscience Research Would Benefit from Registered Reports.
    Ellis RJ
    eNeuro; 2022; 9(4):. PubMed ID: 35922130
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Welfare of aquatic organisms: is there some faith-based HARKing going on here?
    Browman HI; Skiftesvik AB
    Dis Aquat Organ; 2011 May; 94(3):255-7. PubMed ID: 21790074
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Quality criteria for randomized controlled studies: obstetrical journal guidelines.
    Anderson K; Romero R; Odibo AO; Rouse D; Marsh M; Acharya G; Chitty L; Ortmann O; Geary M; Gratacos E; Gallagher PG; Gupta J; Renzo GCD; Maulik D; de Costa C; Saade G; Dudenhausen JW; Berghella V
    Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM; 2021 May; 3(3):100334. PubMed ID: 33607321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Examining publication bias-a simulation-based evaluation of statistical tests on publication bias.
    Schneck A
    PeerJ; 2017; 5():e4115. PubMed ID: 29204324
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Are most published research findings false? Trends in statistical power, publication selection bias, and the false discovery rate in psychology (1975-2017).
    Schneck A
    PLoS One; 2023; 18(10):e0292717. PubMed ID: 37847689
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Authorization of Animal Experiments Is Based on Confidence Rather than Evidence of Scientific Rigor.
    Vogt L; Reichlin TS; Nathues C; Würbel H
    PLoS Biol; 2016 Dec; 14(12):e2000598. PubMed ID: 27911892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Publication and other reporting biases in cognitive sciences: detection, prevalence, and prevention.
    Ioannidis JP; Munafò MR; Fusar-Poli P; Nosek BA; David SP
    Trends Cogn Sci; 2014 May; 18(5):235-41. PubMed ID: 24656991
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Replication initiatives will not salvage the trustworthiness of psychology.
    Coyne JC
    BMC Psychol; 2016 May; 4(1):28. PubMed ID: 27245324
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Letting the daylight in: Reviewing the reviewers and other ways to maximize transparency in science.
    Wicherts JM; Kievit RA; Bakker M; Borsboom D
    Front Comput Neurosci; 2012; 6():20. PubMed ID: 22536180
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Questionable research practices among Brazilian psychological researchers: Results from a replication study and an international comparison.
    Rabelo ALA; Farias JEM; Sarmet MM; Joaquim TCR; Hoersting RC; Victorino L; Modesto JGN; Pilati R
    Int J Psychol; 2020 Aug; 55(4):674-683. PubMed ID: 31745980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. [The different models of scientific journals].
    Chippaux JP
    Med Trop Sante Int; 2023 Dec; 3(4):. PubMed ID: 38390021
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. The trustworthiness of the cumulative knowledge in industrial/organizational psychology: The current state of affairs and a path forward.
    Keener SK; Kepes S; Torka AK
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2023 Sep; 239():104005. PubMed ID: 37625919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. On the reproducibility of meta-analyses: six practical recommendations.
    Lakens D; Hilgard J; Staaks J
    BMC Psychol; 2016 May; 4(1):24. PubMed ID: 27241618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Investigating and dealing with publication bias and other reporting biases in meta-analyses of health research: A review.
    Page MJ; Sterne JAC; Higgins JPT; Egger M
    Res Synth Methods; 2021 Mar; 12(2):248-259. PubMed ID: 33166064
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Questionable research practices in ecology and evolution.
    Fraser H; Parker T; Nakagawa S; Barnett A; Fidler F
    PLoS One; 2018; 13(7):e0200303. PubMed ID: 30011289
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. p-Hacking and publication bias interact to distort meta-analytic effect size estimates.
    Friese M; Frankenbach J
    Psychol Methods; 2020 Aug; 25(4):456-471. PubMed ID: 31789538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Statistical significance and publication reporting bias in abstracts of reproductive medicine studies.
    Feng Q; Mol BW; Ioannidis JPA; Li W
    Hum Reprod; 2023 Nov; 39(3):548-558. PubMed ID: 38015794
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Health-related quality of life in early breast cancer.
    Groenvold M
    Dan Med Bull; 2010 Sep; 57(9):B4184. PubMed ID: 20816024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Indicators of questionable research practices were identified in 163,129 randomized controlled trials.
    Damen JA; Heus P; Lamberink HJ; Tijdink JK; Bouter L; Glasziou P; Moher D; Otte WM; Vinkers CH; Hooft L
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2023 Feb; 154():23-32. PubMed ID: 36470577
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.