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 *

605 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30067315)

  • 1. A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in simulated random-effects meta-analyses.
    Langan D; Higgins JPT; Jackson D; Bowden J; Veroniki AA; Kontopantelis E; Viechtbauer W; Simmonds M
    Res Synth Methods; 2019 Mar; 10(1):83-98. PubMed ID: 30067315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. An empirical comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in 12 894 meta-analyses.
    Langan D; Higgins JP; Simmonds M
    Res Synth Methods; 2015 Jun; 6(2):195-205. PubMed ID: 26053175
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Methods for estimating between-study variance and overall effect in meta-analysis of odds ratios.
    Bakbergenuly I; Hoaglin DC; Kulinskaya E
    Res Synth Methods; 2020 May; 11(3):426-442. PubMed ID: 32112619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A comparison of methods for meta-analysis of a small number of studies with binary outcomes.
    Mathes T; Kuss O
    Res Synth Methods; 2018 Sep; 9(3):366-381. PubMed ID: 29573180
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Likelihood-based random-effects meta-analysis with few studies: empirical and simulation studies.
    Seide SE; Röver C; Friede T
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Jan; 19(1):16. PubMed ID: 30634920
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Methods to estimate the between-study variance and its uncertainty in meta-analysis.
    Veroniki AA; Jackson D; Viechtbauer W; Bender R; Bowden J; Knapp G; Kuss O; Higgins JP; Langan D; Salanti G
    Res Synth Methods; 2016 Mar; 7(1):55-79. PubMed ID: 26332144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Do statistical heterogeneity methods impact the results of meta- analyses? A meta epidemiological study.
    Mheissen S; Khan H; Normando D; Vaiid N; Flores-Mir C
    PLoS One; 2024; 19(3):e0298526. PubMed ID: 38502662
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Interval estimation of the overall treatment effect in random-effects meta-analyses: Recommendations from a simulation study comparing frequentist, Bayesian, and bootstrap methods.
    Weber F; Knapp G; Glass Ä; Kundt G; Ickstadt K
    Res Synth Methods; 2021 May; 12(3):291-315. PubMed ID: 33264488
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparative performance of heterogeneity variance estimators in meta-analysis: a review of simulation studies.
    Langan D; Higgins JPT; Simmonds M
    Res Synth Methods; 2017 Jun; 8(2):181-198. PubMed ID: 27060925
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A comparison of 20 heterogeneity variance estimators in statistical synthesis of results from studies: a simulation study.
    Petropoulou M; Mavridis D
    Stat Med; 2017 Nov; 36(27):4266-4280. PubMed ID: 28815652
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Random effects meta-analysis: Coverage performance of 95% confidence and prediction intervals following REML estimation.
    Partlett C; Riley RD
    Stat Med; 2017 Jan; 36(2):301-317. PubMed ID: 27714841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Multistep estimators of the between-study variance: The relationship with the Paule-Mandel estimator.
    van Aert RCM; Jackson D
    Stat Med; 2018 Jul; 37(17):2616-2629. PubMed ID: 29700839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Assessing Heterogeneity in Random-Effects Meta-analysis.
    Langan D
    Methods Mol Biol; 2022; 2345():67-89. PubMed ID: 34550584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Methods to calculate uncertainty in the estimated overall effect size from a random-effects meta-analysis.
    Veroniki AA; Jackson D; Bender R; Kuss O; Langan D; Higgins JPT; Knapp G; Salanti G
    Res Synth Methods; 2019 Mar; 10(1):23-43. PubMed ID: 30129707
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Heterogeneity estimates in a biased world.
    Hönekopp J; Linden AH
    PLoS One; 2022; 17(2):e0262809. PubMed ID: 35113897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Evaluation of heterogeneity and heterogeneity interval estimators in random-effects meta-analysis of the standardized mean difference in education and psychology.
    Boedeker P; Henson RK
    Psychol Methods; 2020 Jun; 25(3):346-364. PubMed ID: 31599614
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in combining results of studies.
    Sidik K; Jonkman JN
    Stat Med; 2007 Apr; 26(9):1964-81. PubMed ID: 16955539
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparisons of various estimates of the
    Wang Y; DelRocco N; Lin L
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2024 May; 33(5):745-764. PubMed ID: 38502022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Bayesian estimation in random effects meta-analysis using a non-informative prior.
    Bodnar O; Link A; Arendacká B; Possolo A; Elster C
    Stat Med; 2017 Jan; 36(2):378-399. PubMed ID: 27790722
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Confidence intervals for random effects meta-analysis and robustness to publication bias.
    Henmi M; Copas JB
    Stat Med; 2010 Dec; 29(29):2969-83. PubMed ID: 20963748
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 31.