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 *

305 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31349805)

  • 1. Methodological steps used by authors of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of clinical trials: a cross-sectional study.
    Giang HTN; Ahmed AM; Fala RY; Khattab MM; Othman MHA; Abdelrahman SAM; Thao LP; Gabl AEAE; Elrashedy SA; Lee PN; Hirayama K; Salem H; Huy NT
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Jul; 19(1):164. PubMed ID: 31349805
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Protocol registration issues of systematic review and meta-analysis studies: a survey of global researchers.
    Tawfik GM; Giang HTN; Ghozy S; Altibi AM; Kandil H; Le HH; Eid PS; Radwan I; Makram OM; Hien TTT; Sherif M; Hossain AS; Thang TLL; Puljak L; Salem H; Numair T; Moji K; Huy NT
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2020 Aug; 20(1):213. PubMed ID: 32842968
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Abstract analysis method facilitates filtering low-methodological quality and high-bias risk systematic reviews on psoriasis interventions.
    Gómez-García F; Ruano J; Aguilar-Luque M; Alcalde-Mellado P; Gay-Mimbrera J; Hernández-Romero JL; Sanz-Cabanillas JL; Maestre-López B; González-Padilla M; Carmona-Fernández PJ; García-Nieto AV; Isla-Tejera B
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Dec; 17(1):180. PubMed ID: 29284417
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Contacting of authors by systematic reviewers: protocol for a cross-sectional study and a survey.
    Meursinge Reynders R; Ladu L; Di Girolamo N
    Syst Rev; 2017 Dec; 6(1):249. PubMed ID: 29216930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Published in High-Impact Otolaryngology Journals.
    Martinez-Monedero R; Danielian A; Angajala V; Dinalo JE; Kezirian EJ
    Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2020 Nov; 163(5):892-905. PubMed ID: 32450783
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Low methodological quality of systematic reviews on acupuncture: a cross-sectional study.
    Ho L; Ke FYT; Wong CHL; Wu IXY; Cheung AKL; Mao C; Chung VCH
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 Oct; 21(1):237. PubMed ID: 34717563
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Assessing journal author guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: findings from an institutional sample.
    Goldberg J; Boyce LM; Soudant C; Godwin K
    J Med Libr Assoc; 2022 Jan; 110(1):63-71. PubMed ID: 35210964
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Epidemiological characteristics and methodological quality of meta-analyses on diabetes mellitus treatment: a systematic review.
    Wu XY; Lam VC; Yu YF; Ho RS; Feng Y; Wong CH; Yip BH; Tsoi KK; Wong SY; Chung VC
    Eur J Endocrinol; 2016 Nov; 175(5):353-60. PubMed ID: 27491373
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Reporting and Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Nursing Interventions in Patients With Alzheimer's Disease: General Implications of the Findings.
    Sun X; Zhou X; Zhang Y; Liu H
    J Nurs Scholarsh; 2019 May; 51(3):308-316. PubMed ID: 30806019
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Endorsement of PRISMA statement and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in nursing journals: a cross-sectional study.
    Tam WW; Lo KK; Khalechelvam P
    BMJ Open; 2017 Feb; 7(2):e013905. PubMed ID: 28174224
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Key Steps in Conducting Systematic Reviews for Underpinning Clinical Practice Guidelines: Methodology of the European Association of Urology.
    Knoll T; Omar MI; Maclennan S; Hernández V; Canfield S; Yuan Y; Bruins M; Marconi L; Van Poppel H; N'Dow J; Sylvester R;
    Eur Urol; 2018 Feb; 73(2):290-300. PubMed ID: 28917594
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review.
    Zeng X; Zhang Y; Kwong JS; Zhang C; Li S; Sun F; Niu Y; Du L
    J Evid Based Med; 2015 Feb; 8(1):2-10. PubMed ID: 25594108
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Evaluating characteristics of PROSPERO records as predictors of eventual publication of non-Cochrane systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study protocol.
    Ruano J; Gómez-García F; Gay-Mimbrera J; Aguilar-Luque M; Fernández-Rueda JL; Fernández-Chaichio J; Alcalde-Mellado P; Carmona-Fernandez PJ; Sanz-Cabanillas JL; Viguera-Guerra I; Franco-García F; Cárdenas-Aranzana M; Romero JLH; Gonzalez-Padilla M; Isla-Tejera B; Garcia-Nieto AV
    Syst Rev; 2018 Mar; 7(1):43. PubMed ID: 29523200
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses available for bovine and equine veterinarians and quality of abstract reporting: A scoping review.
    Buczinski S; Ferraro S; Vandeweerd JM
    Prev Vet Med; 2018 Dec; 161():50-59. PubMed ID: 30466658
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A systematic assessment of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in high-impact medical journals related to cancer.
    Goldkuhle M; Narayan VM; Weigl A; Dahm P; Skoetz N
    BMJ Open; 2018 Mar; 8(3):e020869. PubMed ID: 29581210
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Methodological quality of meta-analyses on treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a cross-sectional study using the AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) tool.
    Ho RS; Wu X; Yuan J; Liu S; Lai X; Wong SY; Chung VC
    NPJ Prim Care Respir Med; 2015 Jan; 25():14102. PubMed ID: 25569783
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 16.