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 *

136 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33576574)

  • 1. A confidence interval robust to publication bias for random-effects meta-analysis of few studies.
    Henmi M; Hattori S; Friede T
    Res Synth Methods; 2021 Sep; 12(5):674-679. PubMed ID: 33576574
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Examining how meta-analytic methods perform in the presence of bias: A simulation study.
    Bramley P; López-López JA; Higgins JPT
    Res Synth Methods; 2021 Nov; 12(6):816-830. PubMed ID: 34327842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Confidence intervals for random effects meta-analysis and robustness to publication bias.
    Henmi M; Copas JB
    Stat Med; 2010 Dec; 29(29):2969-83. PubMed ID: 20963748
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Using clinical trial registries to inform Copas selection model for publication bias in meta-analysis.
    Huang A; Komukai S; Friede T; Hattori S
    Res Synth Methods; 2021 Sep; 12(5):658-673. PubMed ID: 34169657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Quantifying the risk of error when interpreting funnel plots.
    Simmonds M
    Syst Rev; 2015 Mar; 4():24. PubMed ID: 25875027
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Likelihood-based random-effects meta-analysis with few studies: empirical and simulation studies.
    Seide SE; Röver C; Friede T
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Jan; 19(1):16. PubMed ID: 30634920
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Graphical augmentations to sample-size-based funnel plot in meta-analysis.
    Lin L
    Res Synth Methods; 2019 Sep; 10(3):376-388. PubMed ID: 30664834
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Meta-analyses with binary outcomes: how many studies need to be omitted to detect a publication bias?
    Saveleva E; Selinski S
    J Toxicol Environ Health A; 2008; 71(13-14):845-50. PubMed ID: 18569583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Neither fixed nor random: weighted least squares meta-analysis.
    Stanley TD; Doucouliagos H
    Stat Med; 2015 Jun; 34(13):2116-27. PubMed ID: 25809462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Random effects meta-analysis: Coverage performance of 95% confidence and prediction intervals following REML estimation.
    Partlett C; Riley RD
    Stat Med; 2017 Jan; 36(2):301-317. PubMed ID: 27714841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Detecting and adjusting for small-study effects in meta-analysis.
    Rücker G; Carpenter JR; Schwarzer G
    Biom J; 2011 Mar; 53(2):351-68. PubMed ID: 21374698
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Confidence intervals for the between-study variance in random-effects meta-analysis using generalised heterogeneity statistics: should we use unequal tails?
    Jackson D; Bowden J
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2016 Sep; 16(1):118. PubMed ID: 27604952
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Statistical properties of methods based on the Q-statistic for constructing a confidence interval for the between-study variance in meta-analysis.
    van Aert RCM; van Assen MALM; Viechtbauer W
    Res Synth Methods; 2019 Jun; 10(2):225-239. PubMed ID: 30589219
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Publication bias & small-study effects in pediatric dentistry meta-analyses.
    Papageorgiou SN; Dimitraki D; Coolidge T; Kotsanos N
    J Evid Based Dent Pract; 2015 Mar; 15(1):8-24. PubMed ID: 25666576
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Funnel plots may show asymmetry in the absence of publication bias with continuous outcomes dependent on baseline risk: presentation of a new publication bias test.
    Doleman B; Freeman SC; Lund JN; Williams JP; Sutton AJ
    Res Synth Methods; 2020 Jul; 11(4):522-534. PubMed ID: 32362052
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. How does under-reporting of negative and inconclusive results affect the false-positive rate in meta-analysis? A simulation study.
    Kicinski M
    BMJ Open; 2014 Aug; 4(8):e004831. PubMed ID: 25168036
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Copas-like selection model to correct publication bias in systematic review of diagnostic test studies.
    Piao J; Liu Y; Chen Y; Ning J
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2019; 28(10-11):2912-2923. PubMed ID: 30062910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Quantifying publication bias in meta-analysis.
    Lin L; Chu H
    Biometrics; 2018 Sep; 74(3):785-794. PubMed ID: 29141096
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.