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 *

153 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32450128)

  • 1. Controversy and debate on credibility ceilings. Paper 1: Fundamental problems with the "credibility ceiling" method for meta-analyses.
    Mathur MB; VanderWeele TJ
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2020 Nov; 127():208-210. PubMed ID: 32450128
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Controversy and debate on credibility ceilings. Paper 3: errors in the statistical justification for the "credibility ceiling" method remain uncorrected.
    Mathur MB; VanderWeele TJ
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2020 Nov; 127():214-216. PubMed ID: 32442482
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Application of credibility ceilings probes the robustness of meta-analyses of biomarkers and cancer risk.
    Papatheodorou SI; Tsilidis KK; Evangelou E; Ioannidis JP
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 Feb; 68(2):163-74. PubMed ID: 25433443
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Synthesis of observational studies should consider credibility ceilings.
    Salanti G; Ioannidis JP
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Feb; 62(2):115-22. PubMed ID: 19131013
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Methods to Address Confounding and Other Biases in Meta-Analyses: Review and Recommendations.
    Mathur MB; VanderWeele TJ
    Annu Rev Public Health; 2022 Apr; 43():19-35. PubMed ID: 34535060
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Effect of formal statistical significance on the credibility of observational associations.
    Ioannidis JP
    Am J Epidemiol; 2008 Aug; 168(4):374-83; discussion 384-90. PubMed ID: 18611956
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Strategies to improve the credibility of meta-analyses in spine surgery: a systematic survey.
    Evaniew N; van der Watt L; Bhandari M; Ghert M; Aleem I; Drew B; Guyatt G
    Spine J; 2015 Sep; 15(9):2066-76. PubMed ID: 26002725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Exploratory or analytic meta-analysis: should we distinguish between them?
    Anello C; Fleiss JL
    J Clin Epidemiol; 1995 Jan; 48(1):109-16; discussion 117-8. PubMed ID: 7853037
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Estimating the proportion of studies missing for meta-analysis due to publication bias.
    Formann AK
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2008 Sep; 29(5):732-9. PubMed ID: 18586577
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: part 6. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies.
    Manchikanti L; Datta S; Smith HS; Hirsch JA
    Pain Physician; 2009; 12(5):819-50. PubMed ID: 19787009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Credibility of subgroup findings in clinical trials and meta-analyses.
    Myles P; Kasza J; Turner T
    Br J Anaesth; 2021 Jul; 127(1):11-14. PubMed ID: 33992396
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Sensitivity analysis for publication bias in meta-analysis of diagnostic studies for a continuous biomarker.
    Hattori S; Zhou XH
    Stat Med; 2018 Feb; 37(3):327-342. PubMed ID: 28990209
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparison of two random-effects methods of meta-analysis.
    Hall SM; Brannick MT
    J Appl Psychol; 2002 Apr; 87(2):377-89. PubMed ID: 12002964
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Controversy and debate on credibility ceilings. Paper 2: Using credibility ceilings to explore skepticism about observational evidence.
    Ioannidis JPA
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2020 Nov; 127():211-213. PubMed ID: 32438023
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Modelling publication bias in meta-analysis: a review.
    Sutton AJ; Song F; Gilbody SM; Abrams KR
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2000 Oct; 9(5):421-45. PubMed ID: 11191259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Sensitivity analysis with iterative outlier detection for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
    Meng Z; Wang J; Lin L; Wu C
    Stat Med; 2024 Apr; 43(8):1549-1563. PubMed ID: 38318993
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. On Conducting Construct Validity Meta-Analyses for the Rorschach: A Reply to Tibon Czopp and Zeligman (2016).
    Mihura JL; Meyer GJ; Dumitrascu N; Bombel G
    J Pers Assess; 2016; 98(4):343-50. PubMed ID: 27153466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Can meta-analyses be trusted?
    Thompson SG; Pocock SJ
    Lancet; 1991 Nov; 338(8775):1127-30. PubMed ID: 1682553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Potential impact of missing outcome data on treatment effects in systematic reviews: imputation study.
    Kahale LA; Khamis AM; Diab B; Chang Y; Lopes LC; Agarwal A; Li L; Mustafa RA; Koujanian S; Waziry R; Busse JW; Dakik A; Schünemann HJ; Hooft L; Scholten RJ; Guyatt GH; Akl EA
    BMJ; 2020 Aug; 370():m2898. PubMed ID: 32847800
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The ACCE method: an approach for obtaining quantitative or qualitative estimates of residual confounding that includes unmeasured confounding.
    Smith EG
    F1000Res; 2014; 3():187. PubMed ID: 25580226
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.