121 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31330251)
1. A systematic review finds that spin or interpretation bias is abundant in evaluations of ovarian cancer biomarkers.
Ghannad M; Olsen M; Boutron I; Bossuyt PM
J Clin Epidemiol; 2019 Dec; 116():9-17. PubMed ID: 31330251
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Shortcomings in the evaluation of biomarkers in ovarian cancer: a systematic review.
Olsen M; Ghannad M; Lok C; Bossuyt PM
Clin Chem Lab Med; 2019 Dec; 58(1):3-10. PubMed ID: 30956227
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Spin in the Scientific Literature on Bariatric Endoscopy: a Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Shirvani S; Rives-Lange C; Rassy N; Berger A; Carette C; Poghosyan T; Czernichow S
Obes Surg; 2022 Feb; 32(2):503-511. PubMed ID: 34783961
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Overinterpretation of Research Findings: Evidence of "Spin" in Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies.
McGrath TA; McInnes MDF; van Es N; Leeflang MMG; Korevaar DA; Bossuyt PMM
Clin Chem; 2017 Aug; 63(8):1353-1362. PubMed ID: 28606911
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Overinterpretation and misreporting of prognostic factor studies in oncology: a systematic review.
Kempf E; de Beyer JA; Cook J; Holmes J; Mohammed S; Nguyên TL; Simera I; Trivella M; Altman DG; Hopewell S; Moons KGM; Porcher R; Reitsma JB; Sauerbrei W; Collins GS
Br J Cancer; 2018 Nov; 119(10):1288-1296. PubMed ID: 30353050
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Overinterpretation of Research Findings: Evaluation of "Spin" in Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies in High-Impact Factor Journals.
McGrath TA; Bowdridge JC; Prager R; Frank RA; Treanor L; Dehmoobad Sharifabadi A; Salameh JP; Leeflang M; Korevaar DA; Bossuyt PM; McInnes MDF
Clin Chem; 2020 Jul; 66(7):915-924. PubMed ID: 32433721
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Spin in Published Reports of Tinnitus Randomized Controlled Trials: Evidence of Overinterpretation of Results.
Velde HM; van Heteren JAA; Smit AL; Stegeman I
Front Neurol; 2021; 12():693937. PubMed ID: 34335451
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Systematic review finds "spin" practices and poor reporting standards in studies on machine learning-based prediction models.
Andaur Navarro CL; Damen JAA; Takada T; Nijman SWJ; Dhiman P; Ma J; Collins GS; Bajpai R; Riley RD; Moons KGM; Hooft L
J Clin Epidemiol; 2023 Jun; 158():99-110. PubMed ID: 37024020
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan for ovarian cancer.
Forbes C; Shirran L; Bagnall AM; Duffy S; ter Riet G
Health Technol Assess; 2001; 5(28):1-110. PubMed ID: 11701100
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Trial registration as a safeguard against outcome reporting bias and spin? A case study of randomized controlled trials of acupuncture.
Won J; Kim S; Bae I; Lee H
PLoS One; 2019; 14(10):e0223305. PubMed ID: 31581278
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Misrepresentation and distortion of research in biomedical literature.
Boutron I; Ravaud P
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2018 Mar; 115(11):2613-2619. PubMed ID: 29531025
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Health-related quality of life in early breast cancer.
Groenvold M
Dan Med Bull; 2010 Sep; 57(9):B4184. PubMed ID: 20816024
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Overinterpretation and misreporting of diagnostic accuracy studies: evidence of "spin".
Ochodo EA; de Haan MC; Reitsma JB; Hooft L; Bossuyt PM; Leeflang MM
Radiology; 2013 May; 267(2):581-8. PubMed ID: 23360738
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Proteomic biomarkers for ovarian cancer risk in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review and biomarker database integration.
Galazis N; Olaleye O; Haoula Z; Layfield R; Atiomo W
Fertil Steril; 2012 Dec; 98(6):1590-601.e1. PubMed ID: 22959458
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. SPIN-PM: a consensus framework to evaluate the presence of spin in studies on prediction models.
Andaur Navarro CL; Damen JAA; Ghannad M; Dhiman P; van Smeden M; Reitsma JB; Collins GS; Riley RD; Moons KGM; Hooft L
J Clin Epidemiol; 2024 Jun; 170():111364. PubMed ID: 38631529
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Circulating microRNAs as novel potential diagnostic biomarkers for ovarian cancer: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis.
Wang X; Kong D; Wang C; Ding X; Zhang L; Zhao M; Chen J; Xu X; Hu X; Yang J; Gao S
J Ovarian Res; 2019 Mar; 12(1):24. PubMed ID: 30898156
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Ovarian cancer in Lynch syndrome; a systematic review.
Helder-Woolderink JM; Blok EA; Vasen HF; Hollema H; Mourits MJ; De Bock GH
Eur J Cancer; 2016 Mar; 55():65-73. PubMed ID: 26773421
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. CA 125, PET alone, PET-CT, CT and MRI in diagnosing recurrent ovarian carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Gu P; Pan LL; Wu SQ; Sun L; Huang G
Eur J Radiol; 2009 Jul; 71(1):164-74. PubMed ID: 18378417
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Misrepresentation of the risk of ovarian cancer among women using menopausal hormones. Spurious findings in a meta-analysis.
Shapiro S; Stevenson JC; Mueck AO; Baber R
Maturitas; 2015 Jun; 81(2):323-6. PubMed ID: 25891501
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Ovarian cancer recurrence and early detection: may HE4 play a key role in this open challenge? A systematic review of literature.
Capriglione S; Luvero D; Plotti F; Terranova C; Montera R; Scaletta G; Schirò T; Rossini G; Benedetti Panici P; Angioli R
Med Oncol; 2017 Aug; 34(9):164. PubMed ID: 28825178
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
