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 *

257 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30047306)

  • 21. Crowdsourcing critical appraisal of research evidence (CrowdCARE) was found to be a valid approach to assessing clinical research quality.
    Pianta MJ; Makrai E; Verspoor KM; Cohn TA; Downie LE
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2018 Dec; 104():8-14. PubMed ID: 30075189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. The experience of adults who choose watchful waiting or active surveillance as an approach to medical treatment: a qualitative systematic review.
    Rittenmeyer L; Huffman D; Alagna M; Moore E
    JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep; 2016 Feb; 14(2):174-255. PubMed ID: 27536798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. A review of critical appraisal tools show they lack rigor: Alternative tool structure is proposed.
    Crowe M; Sheppard L
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2011 Jan; 64(1):79-89. PubMed ID: 21130354
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Use of existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments and their modification: the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Evaluating and Documenting Content Validity for the Use of Existing Instruments and Their Modification PRO Task Force Report.
    Rothman M; Burke L; Erickson P; Leidy NK; Patrick DL; Petrie CD
    Value Health; 2009; 12(8):1075-83. PubMed ID: 19804437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Using Sandelowski and Barroso's Meta-Synthesis Method in Advancing Qualitative Evidence.
    Ludvigsen MS; Hall EO; Meyer G; Fegran L; Aagaard H; Uhrenfeldt L
    Qual Health Res; 2016 Feb; 26(3):320-9. PubMed ID: 25794523
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. The measurement of collaboration within healthcare settings: a systematic review of measurement properties of instruments.
    Walters SJ; Stern C; Robertson-Malt S
    JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep; 2016 Apr; 14(4):138-97. PubMed ID: 27532315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Considering axiological integrity: a methodological analysis of qualitative evidence syntheses, and its implications for health professions education.
    Kelly M; Ellaway RH; Reid H; Ganshorn H; Yardley S; Bennett D; Dornan T
    Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract; 2018 Oct; 23(4):833-851. PubMed ID: 29761255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. The Blind Men and the Elephant: Meta-Ethnography 30 Years On.
    Brookfield S; Fitzgerald L; Selvey L; Maher L
    Qual Health Res; 2019 Sep; 29(11):1674-1681. PubMed ID: 30741098
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. The use of meta-synthesis in cardiovascular nursing research.
    Woodend AK
    Can J Cardiovasc Nurs; 2007; 17(3):32-6. PubMed ID: 17941567
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Appraising the quality of qualitative research.
    Walsh D; Downe S
    Midwifery; 2006 Jun; 22(2):108-19. PubMed ID: 16243416
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. A practitioner's guide to developing critical appraisal skills: reviews of research.
    Needleman I; Clarkson J; Worthington H
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2013 May; 144(5):527-30. PubMed ID: 23633701
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. The Impact of Evidence-Based Medicine on Qualitative Metasynthesis: Benefits to be Harvested and Warnings to be Given.
    Malterud K
    Qual Health Res; 2019 Jan; 29(1):7-17. PubMed ID: 30160202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Health systems guidance appraisal--a critical interpretive synthesis.
    Ako-Arrey DE; Brouwers MC; Lavis JN; Giacomini MK;
    Implement Sci; 2016 Jan; 11():9. PubMed ID: 26800684
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Impact of choice of quality appraisal tool for systematic reviews in overviews.
    Pieper D; Mathes T; Eikermann M
    J Evid Based Med; 2014 May; 7(2):72-8. PubMed ID: 25155764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Harnessing Energies, Resolving Tensions: Acknowledging a Dual Heritage for Qualitative Evidence Synthesis.
    Booth A
    Qual Health Res; 2019 Jan; 29(1):18-31. PubMed ID: 30799763
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. The problem of appraising qualitative research.
    Dixon-Woods M; Shaw RL; Agarwal S; Smith JA
    Qual Saf Health Care; 2004 Jun; 13(3):223-5. PubMed ID: 15175495
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Women's experience of menopause: a systematic review of qualitative evidence.
    Hoga L; Rodolpho J; Gonçalves B; Quirino B
    JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep; 2015 Sep; 13(8):250-337. PubMed ID: 26455946
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. A scoring system for appraising mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraising qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies in Mixed Studies Reviews.
    Pluye P; Gagnon MP; Griffiths F; Johnson-Lafleur J
    Int J Nurs Stud; 2009 Apr; 46(4):529-46. PubMed ID: 19233357
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Characteristics and determinants of knowledge transfer policies at universities and public institutions in medical research--protocol for a systematic review of the qualitative research literature.
    Jahn R; Müller O; Bozorgmehr K
    Syst Rev; 2015 Aug; 4():110. PubMed ID: 26286398
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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