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 *

405 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30129707)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Methods for evidence synthesis in the case of very few studies.
    Bender R; Friede T; Koch A; Kuss O; Schlattmann P; Schwarzer G; Skipka G
    Res Synth Methods; 2018 Sep; 9(3):382-392. PubMed ID: 29504289
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. A simple method to estimate prediction intervals and predictive distributions: Summarizing meta-analyses beyond means and confidence intervals.
    Wang CC; Lee WC
    Res Synth Methods; 2019 Jun; 10(2):255-266. PubMed ID: 30835918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A comparison of meta-methods for synthesizing indirect effects.
    van Zundert CHJ; Miočević M
    Res Synth Methods; 2020 Nov; 11(6):849-865. PubMed ID: 32833348
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. [Meta-analysis of the Italian studies on short-term effects of air pollution].
    Biggeri A; Bellini P; Terracini B;
    Epidemiol Prev; 2001; 25(2 Suppl):1-71. PubMed ID: 11515188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Random-effects meta-analysis of few studies involving rare events.
    Günhan BK; Röver C; Friede T
    Res Synth Methods; 2020 Jan; 11(1):74-90. PubMed ID: 31348846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. A Bayesian Power Analysis Procedure Considering Uncertainty in Effect Size Estimates from a Meta-analysis.
    Du H; Wang L
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2016; 51(5):589-605. PubMed ID: 27485763
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Estimation of an overall standardized mean difference in random-effects meta-analysis if the distribution of random effects departs from normal.
    Rubio-Aparicio M; López-López JA; Sánchez-Meca J; Marín-Martínez F; Viechtbauer W; Van den Noortgate W
    Res Synth Methods; 2018 Sep; 9(3):489-503. PubMed ID: 29989344
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Confidence intervals for the between-study variance in random-effects meta-analysis using generalised heterogeneity statistics: should we use unequal tails?
    Jackson D; Bowden J
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2016 Sep; 16(1):118. PubMed ID: 27604952
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Incorporating variability in estimates of heterogeneity in the random effects model in meta-analysis.
    Biggerstaff BJ; Tweedie RL
    Stat Med; 1997 Apr; 16(7):753-68. PubMed ID: 9131763
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Statistical Primer: heterogeneity, random- or fixed-effects model analyses?
    Barili F; Parolari A; Kappetein PA; Freemantle N
    Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg; 2018 Sep; 27(3):317-321. PubMed ID: 29868857
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 21.