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 *

606 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30466658)

  • 21. Compliance of systematic reviews in veterinary journals with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) literature search reporting guidelines.
    Toews LC
    J Med Libr Assoc; 2017 Jul; 105(3):233-239. PubMed ID: 28670210
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. PRISMA and AMSTAR show systematic reviews on health literacy and cancer screening are of good quality.
    Sharma S; Oremus M
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2018 Jul; 99():123-131. PubMed ID: 29654821
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. How is AMSTAR applied by authors - a call for better reporting.
    Pieper D; Koensgen N; Breuing J; Ge L; Wegewitz U
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2018 Jun; 18(1):56. PubMed ID: 29914386
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Assessment of reporting quality of abstracts of systematic reviews with meta-analysis using PRISMA-A and discordance in assessments between raters without prior experience.
    Maticic K; Krnic Martinic M; Puljak L
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Feb; 19(1):32. PubMed ID: 30764774
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Methodological quality of systematic reviews on treatments for depression: a cross-sectional study.
    Chung VCH; Wu XY; Feng Y; Ho RST; Wong SYS; Threapleton D
    Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci; 2018 Dec; 27(6):619-627. PubMed ID: 28462754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Quality Assessment of Studies Published in Open Access and Subscription Journals: Results of a Systematic Evaluation.
    Pastorino R; Milovanovic S; Stojanovic J; Efremov L; Amore R; Boccia S
    PLoS One; 2016; 11(5):e0154217. PubMed ID: 27167982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Methodological and Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews Published in the Highest Ranking Journals in the Field of Pain.
    Riado Minguez D; Kowalski M; Vallve Odena M; Longin Pontzen D; Jelicic Kadic A; Jeric M; Dosenovic S; Jakus D; Vrdoljak M; Poklepovic Pericic T; Sapunar D; Puljak L
    Anesth Analg; 2017 Oct; 125(4):1348-1354. PubMed ID: 28678074
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Predictors of Higher Quality of Systematic Reviews Addressing Nutrition and Cancer Prevention.
    Storman D; Koperny M; Zając J; Polak M; Weglarz P; Bochenek-Cibor J; Swierz MJ; Staskiewicz W; Gorecka M; Skuza A; Wach AA; Kaluzinska K; Bała MM
    Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2022 Jan; 19(1):. PubMed ID: 35010766
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Quality assessment of systematic reviews on total hip or knee arthroplasty using mod-AMSTAR.
    Wu X; Sun H; Zhou X; Wang J; Li J
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2018 Mar; 18(1):30. PubMed ID: 29548276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Quality of conduct and reporting of meta-analyses of surgical interventions.
    Adie S; Ma D; Harris IA; Naylor JM; Craig JC
    Ann Surg; 2015 Apr; 261(4):685-94. PubMed ID: 25575252
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Methodological quality and reporting of systematic reviews in hand and wrist pathology.
    Wasiak J; Shen AY; Ware R; O'Donohoe TJ; Faggion CM
    J Hand Surg Eur Vol; 2017 Oct; 42(8):852-856. PubMed ID: 28610464
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews in the orthopaedic literature.
    Gagnier JJ; Kellam PJ
    J Bone Joint Surg Am; 2013 Jun; 95(11):e771-7. PubMed ID: 23780547
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Quality assessment versus risk of bias in systematic reviews: AMSTAR and ROBIS had similar reliability but differed in their construct and applicability.
    Banzi R; Cinquini M; Gonzalez-Lorenzo M; Pecoraro V; Capobussi M; Minozzi S
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2018 Jul; 99():24-32. PubMed ID: 29526556
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. The methodological quality and clinical applicability of meta-analyses on probiotics in 2020: A cross-sectional study.
    Ruszkowski J; Majkutewicz K; Rybka E; Kutek M; Dębska-Ślizień A; Witkowski JM
    Biomed Pharmacother; 2021 Oct; 142():112044. PubMed ID: 34399202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Methodological quality assessment of paper-based systematic reviews published in oral health.
    Wasiak J; Shen AY; Tan HB; Mahar R; Kan G; Khoo WR; Faggion CM
    Clin Oral Investig; 2016 Apr; 20(3):399-431. PubMed ID: 26589200
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Analysis of risk of bias assessments in a sample of intervention systematic reviews, Part II: focus on risk of bias tools reveals few meet current appraisal standards.
    Kolaski K; Clarke M; Logan LR
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2024 Oct; 174():111460. PubMed ID: 39025376
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. The quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses published in the field of bariatrics: A cross-sectional systematic survey using AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS.
    Storman M; Storman D; Jasinska KW; Swierz MJ; Bala MM
    Obes Rev; 2020 May; 21(5):e12994. PubMed ID: 31997545
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Measuring test-retest reliability (TRR) of AMSTAR provides moderate to perfect agreement - a contribution to the discussion of the importance of TRR in relation to the psychometric properties of assessment tools.
    Bühn S; Ober P; Mathes T; Wegewitz U; Jacobs A; Pieper D
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 Mar; 21(1):51. PubMed ID: 33706710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Assessment of the abstract reporting of systematic reviews of dose-response meta-analysis: a literature survey.
    Jia PL; Xu B; Cheng JM; Huang XH; Kwong JSW; Liu Y; Zhang C; Han Y; Xu C
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Jul; 19(1):148. PubMed ID: 31307388
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. The methodological and reporting characteristics of Campbell reviews: A systematic review.
    Wang X; Welch V; Li M; Yao L; Littell J; Li H; Yang N; Wang J; Shamseer L; Chen Y; Yang K; Grimshaw JM
    Campbell Syst Rev; 2021 Mar; 17(1):e1134. PubMed ID: 37133262
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 31.