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 *

182 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33555110)

  • 1. Agreement in Risk of Bias Assessment Between RobotReviewer and Human Reviewers: An Evaluation Study on Randomised Controlled Trials in Nursing-Related Cochrane Reviews.
    Hirt J; Meichlinger J; Schumacher P; Mueller G
    J Nurs Scholarsh; 2021 Mar; 53(2):246-254. PubMed ID: 33555110
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comparing machine and human reviewers to evaluate the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials.
    Armijo-Olivo S; Craig R; Campbell S
    Res Synth Methods; 2020 May; 11(3):484-493. PubMed ID: 32065732
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Towards the automatic risk of bias assessment on randomized controlled trials: A comparison of RobotReviewer and humans.
    Tian Y; Yang X; Doi SA; Furuya-Kanamori L; Lin L; Kwong JSW; Xu C
    Res Synth Methods; 2024 Nov; 15(6):1111-1119. PubMed ID: 39327803
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Technology-assisted risk of bias assessment in systematic reviews: a prospective cross-sectional evaluation of the RobotReviewer machine learning tool.
    Gates A; Vandermeer B; Hartling L
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2018 Apr; 96():54-62. PubMed ID: 29289761
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Automating risk of bias assessment in systematic reviews: a real-time mixed methods comparison of human researchers to a machine learning system.
    Jardim PSJ; Rose CJ; Ames HM; Echavez JFM; Van de Velde S; Muller AE
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2022 Jun; 22(1):167. PubMed ID: 35676632
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Accuracy and Efficiency of Machine Learning-Assisted Risk-of-Bias Assessments in "Real-World" Systematic Reviews : A Noninferiority Randomized Controlled Trial.
    Arno A; Thomas J; Wallace B; Marshall IJ; McKenzie JE; Elliott JH
    Ann Intern Med; 2022 Jul; 175(7):1001-1009. PubMed ID: 35635850
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomised controlled trials: combined analysis of meta-epidemiological studies.
    Savović J; Jones H; Altman D; Harris R; Jűni P; Pildal J; Als-Nielsen B; Balk E; Gluud C; Gluud L; Ioannidis J; Schulz K; Beynon R; Welton N; Wood L; Moher D; Deeks J; Sterne J
    Health Technol Assess; 2012 Sep; 16(35):1-82. PubMed ID: 22989478
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Disagreements in risk of bias assessment for randomised controlled trials included in more than one Cochrane systematic reviews: a research on research study using cross-sectional design.
    Bertizzolo L; Bossuyt P; Atal I; Ravaud P; Dechartres A
    BMJ Open; 2019 Apr; 9(4):e028382. PubMed ID: 30940766
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Risk of bias assessment of randomised controlled trials referenced in the 2015 American Heart Association guidelines update for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care: a cross-sectional review.
    Cho Y; Kim C; Kang B
    BMJ Open; 2019 May; 9(5):e023725. PubMed ID: 31061016
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Machine learning to help researchers evaluate biases in clinical trials: a prospective, randomized user study.
    Soboczenski F; Trikalinos TA; Kuiper J; Bias RG; Wallace BC; Marshall IJ
    BMC Med Inform Decis Mak; 2019 May; 19(1):96. PubMed ID: 31068178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Quality assessment of reporting of randomization, allocation concealment, and blinding in traditional Chinese medicine RCTs: a review of 3159 RCTs identified from 260 systematic reviews.
    He J; Du L; Liu G; Fu J; He X; Yu J; Shang L
    Trials; 2011 May; 12():122. PubMed ID: 21569452
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. What is the influence of randomisation sequence generation and allocation concealment on treatment effects of physical therapy trials? A meta-epidemiological study.
    Armijo-Olivo S; Saltaji H; da Costa BR; Fuentes J; Ha C; Cummings GG
    BMJ Open; 2015 Sep; 5(9):e008562. PubMed ID: 26338841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The methodological quality of 176,620 randomized controlled trials published between 1966 and 2018 reveals a positive trend but also an urgent need for improvement.
    Vinkers CH; Lamberink HJ; Tijdink JK; Heus P; Bouter L; Glasziou P; Moher D; Damen JA; Hooft L; Otte WM
    PLoS Biol; 2021 Apr; 19(4):e3001162. PubMed ID: 33872298
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Testing the risk of bias tool showed low reliability between individual reviewers and across consensus assessments of reviewer pairs.
    Hartling L; Hamm MP; Milne A; Vandermeer B; Santaguida PL; Ansari M; Tsertsvadze A; Hempel S; Shekelle P; Dryden DM
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2013 Sep; 66(9):973-81. PubMed ID: 22981249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Evolution of poor reporting and inadequate methods over time in 20 920 randomised controlled trials included in Cochrane reviews: research on research study.
    Dechartres A; Trinquart L; Atal I; Moher D; Dickersin K; Boutron I; Perrodeau E; Altman DG; Ravaud P
    BMJ; 2017 Jun; 357():j2490. PubMed ID: 28596181
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Poor reliability between Cochrane reviewers and blinded external reviewers when applying the Cochrane risk of bias tool in physical therapy trials.
    Armijo-Olivo S; Ospina M; da Costa BR; Egger M; Saltaji H; Fuentes J; Ha C; Cummings GG
    PLoS One; 2014; 9(5):e96920. PubMed ID: 24824199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.