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.
177 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32394498)
21. Individual participant data meta-analysis to examine interactions between treatment effect and participant-level covariates: Statistical recommendations for conduct and planning. Riley RD; Debray TPA; Fisher D; Hattle M; Marlin N; Hoogland J; Gueyffier F; Staessen JA; Wang J; Moons KGM; Reitsma JB; Ensor J Stat Med; 2020 Jul; 39(15):2115-2137. PubMed ID: 32350891 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Longitudinal and repeated cross-sectional cluster-randomization designs using mixed effects regression for binary outcomes: bias and coverage of frequentist and Bayesian methods. Localio AR; Berlin JA; Have TR Stat Med; 2006 Aug; 25(16):2720-36. PubMed ID: 16345043 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Multivariate meta-analysis: a robust approach based on the theory of U-statistic. Ma Y; Mazumdar M Stat Med; 2011 Oct; 30(24):2911-29. PubMed ID: 21830230 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Comparing methods to estimate treatment effects on a continuous outcome in multicentre randomized controlled trials: a simulation study. Chu R; Thabane L; Ma J; Holbrook A; Pullenayegum E; Devereaux PJ BMC Med Res Methodol; 2011 Feb; 11():21. PubMed ID: 21338524 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. 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]
26. Bias correction in random effects models with sparse binary responses. Korre AK; Vasdekis VG Stat Methods Med Res; 2023 Nov; 32(11):2226-2239. PubMed ID: 37776847 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Meta-analysis of continuous outcomes: Using pseudo IPD created from aggregate data to adjust for baseline imbalance and assess treatment-by-baseline modification. Papadimitropoulou K; Stijnen T; Riley RD; Dekkers OM; le Cessie S Res Synth Methods; 2020 Nov; 11(6):780-794. PubMed ID: 32643264 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. 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]
29. Calculating the power to examine treatment-covariate interactions when planning an individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized trials with a binary outcome. Riley RD; Hattle M; Collins GS; Whittle R; Ensor J Stat Med; 2022 Oct; 41(24):4822-4837. PubMed ID: 35932153 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Multilevel models for survival analysis with random effects. Yau KK Biometrics; 2001 Mar; 57(1):96-102. PubMed ID: 11252624 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Clinical heterogeneity in random-effect meta-analysis: Between-study boundary estimate problem. Yoneoka D; Henmi M Stat Med; 2019 Sep; 38(21):4131-4145. PubMed ID: 31286537 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Which is Better for Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis of Zero-Inflated Count Outcomes, One-Step or Two-Step Analysis? A Simulation Study. Huh D; Baldwin SA; Zhou Z; Park J; Mun EY Multivariate Behav Res; 2023; 58(6):1090-1105. PubMed ID: 36952487 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Estimation Methods for Mixed Logistic Models with Few Clusters. McNeish D Multivariate Behav Res; 2016; 51(6):790-804. PubMed ID: 27802068 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Meta-analysis of a continuous outcome combining individual patient data and aggregate data: a method based on simulated individual patient data. Yamaguchi Y; Sakamoto W; Goto M; Staessen JA; Wang J; Gueyffier F; Riley RD Res Synth Methods; 2014 Dec; 5(4):322-51. PubMed ID: 26052956 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in simulated random-effects meta-analyses. Langan D; Higgins JPT; Jackson D; Bowden J; Veroniki AA; Kontopantelis E; Viechtbauer W; Simmonds M Res Synth Methods; 2019 Mar; 10(1):83-98. PubMed ID: 30067315 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. A frequentist one-step model for a simple network meta-analysis of time-to-event data in presence of an effect modifier. Faron M; Blanchard P; Ribassin-Majed L; Pignon JP; Michiels S; Le Teuff G PLoS One; 2021; 16(11):e0259121. PubMed ID: 34723994 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. A simplification and implementation of random-effects meta-analyses based on the exact distribution of Cochran's Q. Preuß M; Ziegler A Methods Inf Med; 2014; 53(1):54-61. PubMed ID: 24317521 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Consequences of ignoring clustering in linear regression. Ntani G; Inskip H; Osmond C; Coggon D BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 Jul; 21(1):139. PubMed ID: 34233609 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Individual participant data meta-analysis for a binary outcome: one-stage or two-stage? Debray TP; Moons KG; Abo-Zaid GM; Koffijberg H; Riley RD PLoS One; 2013; 8(4):e60650. PubMed ID: 23585842 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Comparison of one-step and two-step meta-analysis models using individual patient data. Mathew T; Nordström K Biom J; 2010 Apr; 52(2):271-87. PubMed ID: 20349448 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]