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 *

133 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32459105)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Inter-review agreement of risk-of-bias judgments varied in Cochrane reviews.
    Könsgen N; Barcot O; Heß S; Puljak L; Goossen K; Rombey T; Pieper D
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2020 Apr; 120():25-32. PubMed ID: 31866473
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. There were large discrepancies in risk of bias tool judgments when a randomized controlled trial appeared in more than one systematic review.
    Jordan VM; Lensen SF; Farquhar CM
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2017 Jan; 81():72-76. PubMed ID: 27622779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Disagreements in risk of bias assessment for randomized controlled trials in hypertension-related Cochrane reviews.
    Yao Y; Shen J; Luo J; Li N; Liao X; Zhang Y
    Trials; 2024 Jun; 25(1):405. PubMed ID: 38907276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Risk of Bias in Iranian Randomized Trials Included in Cochrane Reviews.
    Kabir A; Sofi-Mahmudi A; Karimi Behnagh A; Eidkhani V; Baradaran HR; Kabiri P; Haghdoost A; Mesgarpour B
    Arch Iran Med; 2022 Jun; 25(6):375-382. PubMed ID: 35943017
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Risk of bias assessments and reporting quality of systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials examining acupuncture for depression: An overview and meta-epidemiology study.
    Luo S; Long Y; Xiao W; Wang X; Chen R; Guo Q; Liu J; Shao R; Du L; Chen M
    J Evid Based Med; 2020 Feb; 13(1):25-33. PubMed ID: 32112515
    [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. Are Neonatal Trials Better Conducted and Reported over the Last 6 Decades? An Analysis on Their Risk-of-Bias Status in Cochrane Reviews.
    Lai NM; Ong JMJ; Chen KH; Chaiyakunapruk N; Ovelman C; Soll R
    Neonatology; 2019; 116(2):123-131. PubMed ID: 31108494
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Impact of blinding on estimated treatment effects in randomised clinical trials: meta-epidemiological study.
    Moustgaard H; Clayton GL; Jones HE; Boutron I; Jørgensen L; Laursen DRT; Olsen MF; Paludan-Müller A; Ravaud P; Savović J; Sterne JAC; Higgins JPT; Hróbjartsson A
    BMJ; 2020 Jan; 368():l6802. PubMed ID: 31964641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.