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 *

270 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32247026)

  • 1. Cochrane risk of bias tool was used inadequately in the majority of non-Cochrane systematic reviews.
    Puljak L; Ramic I; Arriola Naharro C; Brezova J; Lin YC; Surdila AA; Tomajkova E; Farias Medeiros I; Nikolovska M; Poklepovic Pericic T; Barcot O; Suarez Salvado M
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2020 Jul; 123():114-119. PubMed ID: 32247026
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Risk of bias judgments for random sequence generation in Cochrane systematic reviews were frequently not in line with Cochrane Handbook.
    Barcot O; Boric M; Poklepovic Pericic T; Cavar M; Dosenovic S; Vuka I; Puljak L
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Aug; 19(1):170. PubMed ID: 31382898
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Risk of bias assessments for selective reporting were inadequate in the majority of Cochrane reviews.
    Saric F; Barcot O; Puljak L
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2019 Aug; 112():53-58. PubMed ID: 31009658
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. In Cochrane reviews, risk of bias assessments for allocation concealment were frequently not in line with Cochrane's Handbook guidance.
    Propadalo I; Tranfic M; Vuka I; Barcot O; Pericic TP; Puljak L
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2019 Feb; 106():10-17. PubMed ID: 30312657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Adequacy of risk of bias assessment in surgical vs non-surgical trials in Cochrane reviews: a methodological study.
    Barcot O; Boric M; Dosenovic S; Cavar M; Jelicic Kadic A; Poklepovic Pericic T; Vukicevic I; Vuka I; Puljak L
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2020 Sep; 20(1):240. PubMed ID: 32993499
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The judgement of biases included in the category "other bias" in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: a systematic survey.
    Babic A; Pijuk A; Brázdilová L; Georgieva Y; Raposo Pereira MA; Poklepovic Pericic T; Puljak L
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Apr; 19(1):77. PubMed ID: 30971219
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Frequency of use and adequacy of Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 in non-Cochrane systematic reviews published in 2020: Meta-research study.
    Babić A; Barcot O; Visković T; Šarić F; Kirkovski A; Barun I; Križanac Z; Ananda RA; Fuentes Barreiro YV; Malih N; Dimcea DA; Ordulj J; Weerasekara I; Spezia M; Žuljević MF; Šuto J; Tancredi L; Pijuk A; Sammali S; Iascone V; von Groote T; Poklepović Peričić T; Puljak L
    Res Synth Methods; 2024 May; 15(3):430-440. PubMed ID: 38262609
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Risk of bias assessments for blinding of participants and personnel in Cochrane reviews were frequently inadequate.
    Barcot O; Boric M; Dosenovic S; Poklepovic Pericic T; Cavar M; Puljak L
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2019 Sep; 113():104-113. PubMed ID: 31132470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Assessing the risk of performance and detection bias in Cochrane reviews as a joint domain is less accurate compared to two separate domains.
    Barcot O; Boric M; Dosenovic S; Puljak L
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 Jul; 21(1):149. PubMed ID: 34275437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Assessments of attrition bias in Cochrane systematic reviews are highly inconsistent and thus hindering trial comparability.
    Babic A; Tokalic R; Amílcar Silva Cunha J; Novak I; Suto J; Vidak M; Miosic I; Vuka I; Poklepovic Pericic T; Puljak L
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Apr; 19(1):76. PubMed ID: 30953448
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Assessing risk of bias judgments for blinding of outcome assessors in Cochrane reviews.
    Barcot O; Dosenovic S; Boric M; Pericic TP; Cavar M; Jelicic Kadic A; Puljak L
    J Comp Eff Res; 2020 Jun; 9(8):585-593. PubMed ID: 32459105
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Use and reporting of risk of bias tools in 825 systematic reviews of acupuncture: a cross-sectional study.
    Long Y; Wang X; Xiao W; Chen R; Guo Q; Liu J; Shao R; Huang J; Du L
    Acupunct Med; 2021 Aug; 39(4):318-326. PubMed ID: 32811166
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Analysis of risk of bias assessments in a sample of intervention systematic reviews, part I: many aspects of conduct and reporting need improvement.
    Kolaski K; Clarke M; Rathnayake D; Romeiser Logan L
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2024 Oct; 174():111480. PubMed ID: 39047919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Risk of bias over time in updates of Cochrane oral health reviews.
    Faggion CM; Aranda L; Pandis N; Alarcón MA; Diaz KT
    J Dent; 2019 Jan; 80():63-68. PubMed ID: 30342067
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Enhanced access to recommendations from the Cochrane Handbook for improving authors' judgments about risk of bias: A randomized controlled trial.
    Barcot O; Ivanda M; Buljan I; Pieper D; Puljak L
    Res Synth Methods; 2021 Sep; 12(5):618-629. PubMed ID: 34050603
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Overall bias methods and their use in sensitivity analysis of Cochrane reviews were not consistent.
    Babic A; Vuka I; Saric F; Proloscic I; Slapnicar E; Cavar J; Poklepovic Pericic T; Pieper D; Puljak L
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2020 Mar; 119():57-64. PubMed ID: 31734347
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Risk of bias assessment of sequence generation: a study of 100 systematic reviews of trials.
    Wuytack F; Regan M; Biesty L; Meskell P; Lutomski JE; O'Donnell M; Treweek S; Devane D
    Syst Rev; 2019 Jan; 8(1):13. PubMed ID: 30621793
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Risk of bias tools in systematic reviews of health interventions: an analysis of PROSPERO-registered protocols.
    Farrah K; Young K; Tunis MC; Zhao L
    Syst Rev; 2019 Nov; 8(1):280. PubMed ID: 31730014
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.