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 *

343 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29248724)

  • 1. Recommendations for assessing the risk of bias in systematic reviews of health-care interventions.
    Viswanathan M; Patnode CD; Berkman ND; Bass EB; Chang S; Hartling L; Murad MH; Treadwell JR; Kane RL
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2018 May; 97():26-34. PubMed ID: 29248724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review.
    Zeng X; Zhang Y; Kwong JS; Zhang C; Li S; Sun F; Niu Y; Du L
    J Evid Based Med; 2015 Feb; 8(1):2-10. PubMed ID: 25594108
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Conducting systematic reviews of economic evaluations.
    Gomersall JS; Jadotte YT; Xue Y; Lockwood S; Riddle D; Preda A
    Int J Evid Based Healthc; 2015 Sep; 13(3):170-8. PubMed ID: 26288063
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach.
    Aromataris E; Fernandez R; Godfrey CM; Holly C; Khalil H; Tungpunkom P
    Int J Evid Based Healthc; 2015 Sep; 13(3):132-40. PubMed ID: 26360830
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. [Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany].
    Bekkering GE; Kleijnen J
    Dtsch Med Wochenschr; 2008 Dec; 133 Suppl 7():S225-46. PubMed ID: 19034813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany.
    Bekkering GE; Kleijnen J
    Eur J Health Econ; 2008 Nov; 9 Suppl 1():5-29. PubMed ID: 18987905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Toward a comprehensive evidence map of overview of systematic review methods: paper 2-risk of bias assessment; synthesis, presentation and summary of the findings; and assessment of the certainty of the evidence.
    Lunny C; Brennan SE; McDonald S; McKenzie JE
    Syst Rev; 2018 Oct; 7(1):159. PubMed ID: 30314530
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Do systematic reviews on pediatric topics need special methodological considerations?
    Farid-Kapadia M; Askie L; Hartling L; Contopoulos-Ioannidis D; Bhutta ZA; Soll R; Moher D; Offringa M
    BMC Pediatr; 2017 Mar; 17(1):57. PubMed ID: 28260530
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The Evidence Project risk of bias tool: assessing study rigor for both randomized and non-randomized intervention studies.
    Kennedy CE; Fonner VA; Armstrong KA; Denison JA; Yeh PT; O'Reilly KR; Sweat MD
    Syst Rev; 2019 Jan; 8(1):3. PubMed ID: 30606262
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Conducting systematic reviews of association (etiology): The Joanna Briggs Institute's approach.
    Moola S; Munn Z; Sears K; Sfetcu R; Currie M; Lisy K; Tufanaru C; Qureshi R; Mattis P; Mu P
    Int J Evid Based Healthc; 2015 Sep; 13(3):163-9. PubMed ID: 26262566
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Risk of bias assessments for selective reporting were inadequate in the majority of Cochrane reviews.
    Saric F; Barcot O; Puljak L
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2019 Aug; 112():53-58. PubMed ID: 31009658
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Completeness of reporting of systematic reviews in the animal health literature: A meta-research study.
    Sargeant JM; Reynolds K; Winder CB; O'Connor AM
    Prev Vet Med; 2021 Oct; 195():105472. PubMed ID: 34438246
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management, part I: introduction and general considerations.
    Manchikanti L
    Pain Physician; 2008; 11(2):161-86. PubMed ID: 18354710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Clinical guidelines and payer policies on fusion for the treatment of chronic low back pain.
    Cheng JS; Lee MJ; Massicotte E; Ashman B; Gruenberg M; Pilcher LE; Skelly AC
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2011 Oct; 36(21 Suppl):S144-63. PubMed ID: 21952186
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Three risk of bias tools lead to opposite conclusions in observational research synthesis.
    Losilla JM; Oliveras I; Marin-Garcia JA; Vives J
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2018 Sep; 101():61-72. PubMed ID: 29864541
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Abstract analysis method facilitates filtering low-methodological quality and high-bias risk systematic reviews on psoriasis interventions.
    Gómez-García F; Ruano J; Aguilar-Luque M; Alcalde-Mellado P; Gay-Mimbrera J; Hernández-Romero JL; Sanz-Cabanillas JL; Maestre-López B; González-Padilla M; Carmona-Fernández PJ; García-Nieto AV; Isla-Tejera B
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Dec; 17(1):180. PubMed ID: 29284417
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 18.