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 *

153 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30278213)

  • 21. An improved method for bivariate meta-analysis when within-study correlations are unknown.
    Hong C; D Riley R; Chen Y
    Res Synth Methods; 2018 Mar; 9(1):73-88. PubMed ID: 29055096
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. A Study of Multivariate Permutation Tests Which May Replace Hotelling's T2 Test in Prescribed Circumstances.
    Blair RC; Higgins JJ; Karniski W; Kromrey JD
    Multivariate Behav Res; 1994 Apr; 29(2):141-63. PubMed ID: 26745025
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Meta-analyzing dependent correlations: an SPSS macro and an R script.
    Cheung SF; Chan DK
    Behav Res Methods; 2014 Jun; 46(2):331-45. PubMed ID: 24197709
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Confidence intervals for a random-effects meta-analysis based on Bartlett-type corrections.
    Noma H
    Stat Med; 2011 Dec; 30(28):3304-12. PubMed ID: 21964669
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. The binomial distribution of meta-analysis was preferred to model within-study variability.
    Hamza TH; van Houwelingen HC; Stijnen T
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Jan; 61(1):41-51. PubMed ID: 18083461
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Inference for binomial probability based on dependent Bernoulli random variables with applications to meta-analysis and group level studies.
    Bakbergenuly I; Kulinskaya E; Morgenthaler S
    Biom J; 2016 Jul; 58(4):896-914. PubMed ID: 27192062
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Statistical methods for the meta-analysis of diagnostic tests must take into account the use of surrogate standards.
    Kang J; Brant R; Ghali WA
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2013 May; 66(5):566-574.e1. PubMed ID: 23466018
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies.
    Rutjes AW; Reitsma JB; Di Nisio M; Smidt N; van Rijn JC; Bossuyt PM
    CMAJ; 2006 Feb; 174(4):469-76. PubMed ID: 16477057
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Selective Cutoff Reporting in Studies of Diagnostic Test Accuracy: A Comparison of Conventional and Individual-Patient-Data Meta-Analyses of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 Depression Screening Tool.
    Levis B; Benedetti A; Levis AW; Ioannidis JPA; Shrier I; Cuijpers P; Gilbody S; Kloda LA; McMillan D; Patten SB; Steele RJ; Ziegelstein RC; Bombardier CH; de Lima Osório F; Fann JR; Gjerdingen D; Lamers F; Lotrakul M; Loureiro SR; Löwe B; Shaaban J; Stafford L; van Weert HCPM; Whooley MA; Williams LS; Wittkampf KA; Yeung AS; Thombs BD
    Am J Epidemiol; 2017 May; 185(10):954-964. PubMed ID: 28419203
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. A randomized trial of ways to describe test accuracy: the effect on physicians' post-test probability estimates.
    Puhan MA; Steurer J; Bachmann LM; ter Riet G
    Ann Intern Med; 2005 Aug; 143(3):184-9. PubMed ID: 16061916
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Exact inference for the random-effect model for meta-analyses with rare events.
    Gronsbell J; Hong C; Nie L; Lu Y; Tian L
    Stat Med; 2020 Feb; 39(3):252-264. PubMed ID: 31820458
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. A multivariate two-sample mean test for small sample size and missing data.
    Wu Y; Genton MG; Stefanski LA
    Biometrics; 2006 Sep; 62(3):877-85. PubMed ID: 16984331
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Diagonal likelihood ratio test for equality of mean vectors in high-dimensional data.
    Hu Z; Tong T; Genton MG
    Biometrics; 2019 Mar; 75(1):256-267. PubMed ID: 30325005
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Cochran's Q test was useful to assess heterogeneity in likelihood ratios in studies of diagnostic accuracy.
    Cohen JF; Chalumeau M; Cohen R; Korevaar DA; Khoshnood B; Bossuyt PM
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 Mar; 68(3):299-306. PubMed ID: 25441698
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Univariate and bivariate likelihood-based meta-analysis methods performed comparably when marginal sensitivity and specificity were the targets of inference.
    Dahabreh IJ; Trikalinos TA; Lau J; Schmid CH
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2017 Mar; 83():8-17. PubMed ID: 28063915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Random effects meta-analysis of event outcome in the framework of the generalized linear mixed model with applications in sparse data.
    Stijnen T; Hamza TH; Ozdemir P
    Stat Med; 2010 Dec; 29(29):3046-67. PubMed ID: 20827667
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Multivariate two-sample permutation tests for trials with multiple time-to-event outcomes.
    Persson I; Arnroth L; Thulin M
    Pharm Stat; 2019 Jul; 18(4):476-485. PubMed ID: 30912618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. A mixed effect model for bivariate meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies using a copula representation of the random effects distribution.
    Nikoloulopoulos AK
    Stat Med; 2015 Dec; 34(29):3842-65. PubMed ID: 26234584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Resampling dependent concordance correlation coefficients.
    Williamson JM; Crawford SB; Lin HM
    J Biopharm Stat; 2007; 17(4):685-96. PubMed ID: 17613648
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.