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 *

111 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32925418)

  • 1. Language bias in systematic reviews: you only get out what you put in.
    Stern C; Kleijnen J
    JBI Evid Synth; 2020 Sep; 18(9):1818-1819. PubMed ID: 32925418
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The inclusion of reports of randomised trials published in languages other than English in systematic reviews.
    Moher D; Pham B; Lawson ML; Klassen TP
    Health Technol Assess; 2003; 7(41):1-90. PubMed ID: 14670218
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The prevalence of and factors associated with inclusion of non-English language studies in Campbell systematic reviews: a survey and meta-epidemiological study.
    Neimann Rasmussen L; Montgomery P
    Syst Rev; 2018 Aug; 7(1):129. PubMed ID: 30139391
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Language of publication restrictions in systematic reviews gave different results depending on whether the intervention was conventional or complementary.
    Pham B; Klassen TP; Lawson ML; Moher D
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2005 Aug; 58(8):769-76. PubMed ID: 16086467
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Systematic reviews identify important methodological flaws in stroke rehabilitation therapy primary studies: review of reviews.
    Santaguida P; Oremus M; Walker K; Wishart LR; Siegel KL; Raina P
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2012 Apr; 65(4):358-67. PubMed ID: 22360987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. [Instructions for aggregated evidence: About reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses (part 2)].
    Günther J; Briel M; Schindler B
    Med Monatsschr Pharm; 2015 Oct; 38(10):401-8. PubMed ID: 26731858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Appraisal of systematic reviews on the management of peri-implant diseases with two methodological tools.
    Faggion CM; Monje A; Wasiak J
    J Clin Periodontol; 2018 Jun; 45(6):754-766. PubMed ID: 29575189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Methodological quality and risk-of-bias assessments in systematic reviews of treatments for peri-implantitis.
    Hasuike A; Ueno D; Nagashima H; Kubota T; Tsukune N; Watanabe N; Sato S
    J Periodontal Res; 2019 Aug; 54(4):374-387. PubMed ID: 30671962
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Who can you trust? A review of free online sources of "trustworthy" information about treatment effects for patients and the public.
    Oxman AD; Paulsen EJ
    BMC Med Inform Decis Mak; 2019 Feb; 19(1):35. PubMed ID: 30786889
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Language restrictions in systematic reviews should not be imposed in the search strategy but in the eligibility criteria if necessary.
    Pieper D; Puljak L
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2021 Apr; 132():146-147. PubMed ID: 33383129
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Outcome reporting bias in Cochrane systematic reviews: a cross-sectional analysis.
    Shah K; Egan G; Huan LN; Kirkham J; Reid E; Tejani AM
    BMJ Open; 2020 Mar; 10(3):e032497. PubMed ID: 32184303
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Systematic reviews involving complementary and alternative medicine interventions had higher quality of reporting than conventional medicine reviews.
    Lawson ML; Pham B; Klassen TP; Moher D
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2005 Aug; 58(8):777-84. PubMed ID: 16018912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Methodological quality of systematic reviews on treatments for depression: a cross-sectional study.
    Chung VCH; Wu XY; Feng Y; Ho RST; Wong SYS; Threapleton D
    Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci; 2018 Dec; 27(6):619-627. PubMed ID: 28462754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [Risk of bias assessment: (1) overview].
    Yang ZR; Sun F; Zhan SY
    Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi; 2017 Jul; 38(7):983-987. PubMed ID: 28738479
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. When to include clinical study reports and regulatory documents in systematic reviews.
    Jefferson T; Doshi P; Boutron I; Golder S; Heneghan C; Hodkinson A; Jones M; Lefebvre C; Stewart LA
    BMJ Evid Based Med; 2018 Dec; 23(6):210-217. PubMed ID: 30309870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.