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 *

192 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31373722)

  • 1. Assessment of heterogeneity in an individual participant data meta-analysis of prediction models: An overview and illustration.
    Steyerberg EW; Nieboer D; Debray TPA; van Houwelingen HC
    Stat Med; 2019 Sep; 38(22):4290-4309. PubMed ID: 31373722
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Imputation of systematically missing predictors in an individual participant data meta-analysis: a generalized approach using MICE.
    Jolani S; Debray TP; Koffijberg H; van Buuren S; Moons KG
    Stat Med; 2015 May; 34(11):1841-63. PubMed ID: 25663182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Statistical approaches to identify subgroups in meta-analysis of individual participant data: a simulation study.
    Belias M; Rovers MM; Reitsma JB; Debray TPA; IntHout J
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Sep; 19(1):183. PubMed ID: 31477023
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. HELOW: a program for testing extreme homogeneity in meta-analysis.
    Zintzaras E; Ioannidis JP
    Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2014 Nov; 117(2):383-6. PubMed ID: 25023534
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A novel approach for identifying and addressing case-mix heterogeneity in individual participant data meta-analysis.
    Vo TT; Porcher R; Chaimani A; Vansteelandt S
    Res Synth Methods; 2019 Dec; 10(4):582-596. PubMed ID: 31682071
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Multivariate meta-analysis of individual participant data helped externally validate the performance and implementation of a prediction model.
    Snell KI; Hua H; Debray TP; Ensor J; Look MP; Moons KG; Riley RD
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2016 Jan; 69():40-50. PubMed ID: 26142114
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Assessing discriminative ability of risk models in clustered data.
    van Klaveren D; Steyerberg EW; Perel P; Vergouwe Y
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2014 Jan; 14():5. PubMed ID: 24423445
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A multivariate model for the meta-analysis of study level survival data at multiple times.
    Jackson D; Rollins K; Coughlin P
    Res Synth Methods; 2014 Sep; 5(3):264-72. PubMed ID: 26052851
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Efficient two-step multivariate random effects meta-analysis of individual participant data for longitudinal clinical trials using mixed effects models.
    Noma H; Maruo K; Gosho M; Levine SZ; Goldberg Y; Leucht S; Furukawa TA
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Feb; 19(1):33. PubMed ID: 30764757
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Random-effects meta-analysis of the clinical utility of tests and prediction models.
    Wynants L; Riley RD; Timmerman D; Van Calster B
    Stat Med; 2018 May; 37(12):2034-2052. PubMed ID: 29575170
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A generalized weighting regression-derived meta-analysis estimator robust to small-study effects and heterogeneity.
    Moreno SG; Sutton AJ; Thompson JR; Ades AE; Abrams KR; Cooper NJ
    Stat Med; 2012 Jun; 31(14):1407-17. PubMed ID: 22351645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A framework for developing, implementing, and evaluating clinical prediction models in an individual participant data meta-analysis.
    Debray TP; Moons KG; Ahmed I; Koffijberg H; Riley RD
    Stat Med; 2013 Aug; 32(18):3158-80. PubMed ID: 23307585
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Selecting the best meta-analytic estimator for evidence-based practice: a simulation study.
    Doi SAR; Furuya-Kanamori L
    Int J Evid Based Healthc; 2020 Mar; 18(1):86-94. PubMed ID: 31764215
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Exploration of heterogeneity in distributed research network drug safety analyses.
    Hansen RA; Zeng P; Ryan P; Gao J; Sonawane K; Teeter B; Westrich K; Dubois RW
    Res Synth Methods; 2014 Dec; 5(4):352-70. PubMed ID: 26052957
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A comparison of one-stage vs two-stage individual patient data meta-analysis methods: A simulation study.
    Kontopantelis E
    Res Synth Methods; 2018 Sep; 9(3):417-430. PubMed ID: 29786975
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Fitting meta-analytic structural equation models with complex datasets.
    Wilson SJ; Polanin JR; Lipsey MW
    Res Synth Methods; 2016 Jun; 7(2):121-39. PubMed ID: 27286899
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The performance of risk prediction models.
    Gerds TA; Cai T; Schumacher M
    Biom J; 2008 Aug; 50(4):457-79. PubMed ID: 18663757
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A simple meta-analytic approach for using a binary surrogate endpoint to predict the effect of intervention on true endpoint.
    Baker SG
    Biostatistics; 2006 Jan; 7(1):58-70. PubMed ID: 15972889
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Meta-STEPP with random effects.
    Wang XV; Cole B; Bonetti M; Gelber RD
    Res Synth Methods; 2018 Jun; 9(2):312-317. PubMed ID: 29281174
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.