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 *

163 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31481098)

  • 1. An algorithm for the classification of study designs to assess diagnostic, prognostic and predictive test accuracy in systematic reviews.
    Mathes T; Pieper D
    Syst Rev; 2019 Sep; 8(1):226. PubMed ID: 31481098
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A methodological review of how heterogeneity has been examined in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy.
    Dinnes J; Deeks J; Kirby J; Roderick P
    Health Technol Assess; 2005 Mar; 9(12):1-113, iii. PubMed ID: 15774235
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparative reviews of diagnostic test accuracy in imaging research: evaluation of current practices.
    Dehmoobad Sharifabadi A; Leeflang M; Treanor L; Kraaijpoel N; Salameh JP; Alabousi M; Asraoui N; Choo-Foo J; Takwoingi Y; Deeks JJ; McInnes MDF
    Eur Radiol; 2019 Oct; 29(10):5386-5394. PubMed ID: 30899976
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Various randomized designs can be used to evaluate medical tests.
    Lijmer JG; Bossuyt PM
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Apr; 62(4):364-73. PubMed ID: 18945590
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of technologies used to visualise the seizure focus in people with refractory epilepsy being considered for surgery: a systematic review and decision-analytical model.
    Burch J; Hinde S; Palmer S; Beyer F; Minton J; Marson A; Wieshmann U; Woolacott N; Soares M
    Health Technol Assess; 2012; 16(34):1-157, iii-iv. PubMed ID: 22985954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Copas-like selection model to correct publication bias in systematic review of diagnostic test studies.
    Piao J; Liu Y; Chen Y; Ning J
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2019; 28(10-11):2912-2923. PubMed ID: 30062910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Using a combination of reference tests to assess the accuracy of a new diagnostic test.
    Alonzo TA; Pepe MS
    Stat Med; 1999 Nov; 18(22):2987-3003. PubMed ID: 10544302
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Systematic reviews of diagnostic tests in cancer: review of methods and reporting.
    Mallett S; Deeks JJ; Halligan S; Hopewell S; Cornelius V; Altman DG
    BMJ; 2006 Aug; 333(7565):413. PubMed ID: 16849365
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Diagnostic test accuracy of nutritional tools used to identify undernutrition in patients with colorectal cancer: a systematic review.
    Håkonsen SJ; Pedersen PU; Bath-Hextall F; Kirkpatrick P
    JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep; 2015 May; 13(4):141-87. PubMed ID: 26447079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Diagnostic test accuracy: methods for systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Campbell JM; Klugar M; Ding S; Carmody DP; Hakonsen SJ; Jadotte YT; White S; Munn Z
    Int J Evid Based Healthc; 2015 Sep; 13(3):154-62. PubMed ID: 26355602
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Empirical assessment of bias in machine learning diagnostic test accuracy studies.
    Crowley RJ; Tan YJ; Ioannidis JPA
    J Am Med Inform Assoc; 2020 Jul; 27(7):1092-1101. PubMed ID: 32548642
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Reporting of measures of accuracy in systematic reviews of diagnostic literature.
    Honest H; Khan KS
    BMC Health Serv Res; 2002; 2():4. PubMed ID: 11884248
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Estimating diagnostic accuracy of multiple binary tests with an imperfect reference standard.
    Albert PS
    Stat Med; 2009 Feb; 28(5):780-97. PubMed ID: 19101935
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Defining ranges for certainty ratings of diagnostic accuracy: a GRADE concept paper.
    Hultcrantz M; Mustafa RA; Leeflang MMG; Lavergne V; Estrada-Orozco K; Ansari MT; Izcovich A; Singh J; Chong LY; Rutjes A; Steingart K; Stein A; Sekercioglu N; Arevalo-Rodriguez I; Morgan RL; Guyatt G; Bossuyt P; Langendam MW; Schünemann HJ
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2020 Jan; 117():138-148. PubMed ID: 31112801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Chapter 10: deciding whether to complement a systematic review of medical tests with decision modeling.
    Trikalinos TA; Kulasingam S; Lawrence WF
    J Gen Intern Med; 2012 Jun; 27 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S76-82. PubMed ID: 22648678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. High and unclear risk of bias assessments are predominant in diagnostic accuracy studies included in Cochrane reviews.
    Di Girolamo N; Winter A; Meursinge Reynders R
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2018 Sep; 101():73-78. PubMed ID: 29777798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Decision making in surgical treatment of chronic low back pain: the performance of prognostic tests to select patients for lumbar spinal fusion.
    Willems P
    Acta Orthop Suppl; 2013 Feb; 84(349):1-35. PubMed ID: 23427903
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Predicting risk and outcomes for frail older adults: an umbrella review of frailty screening tools.
    Apóstolo J; Cooke R; Bobrowicz-Campos E; Santana S; Marcucci M; Cano A; Vollenbroek-Hutten M; Germini F; Holland C
    JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep; 2017 Apr; 15(4):1154-1208. PubMed ID: 28398987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Understanding diagnostic test accuracy studies and systematic reviews: A primer for medical radiation technologists.
    Mander GTW; Munn Z
    J Med Imaging Radiat Sci; 2021 Jun; 52(2):286-294. PubMed ID: 33741279
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Assessment of the accuracy of diagnostic tests: the cross-sectional study.
    Knottnerus JA; Muris JW
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2003 Nov; 56(11):1118-28. PubMed ID: 14615003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.