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 *

117 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33719064)

  • 21. Methodological quality of systematic reviews addressing femoroacetabular impingement.
    Kowalczuk M; Adamich J; Simunovic N; Farrokhyar F; Ayeni OR
    Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc; 2015 Sep; 23(9):2583-9. PubMed ID: 25037984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Examining the evidence in anesthesia literature: a critical appraisal of systematic reviews.
    Choi PT; Halpern SH; Malik N; Jadad AR; Tramèr MR; Walder B
    Anesth Analg; 2001 Mar; 92(3):700-9. PubMed ID: 11226105
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Identification of randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews: accuracy and reliability of screening records.
    Edwards P; Clarke M; DiGuiseppi C; Pratap S; Roberts I; Wentz R
    Stat Med; 2002 Jun; 21(11):1635-40. PubMed ID: 12111924
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Systematic literature reviews.
    White A; Schmidt K
    Complement Ther Med; 2005 Mar; 13(1):54-60. PubMed ID: 15907679
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Checklists for review articles.
    Oxman AD
    BMJ; 1994 Sep; 309(6955):648-51. PubMed ID: 8086990
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. High prevalence but low impact of data extraction and reporting errors were found in Cochrane systematic reviews.
    Jones AP; Remmington T; Williamson PR; Ashby D; Smyth RL
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2005 Jul; 58(7):741-2. PubMed ID: 15939227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Methods employed for other systematic reviews.
    Horowitz AM; Anderson PF
    J Dent Educ; 2001 Oct; 65(10):969-71. PubMed ID: 11699998
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency.
    Pham MT; Rajić A; Greig JD; Sargeant JM; Papadopoulos A; McEwen SA
    Res Synth Methods; 2014 Dec; 5(4):371-85. PubMed ID: 26052958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. The relationship between methodological quality and conclusions in reviews of spinal manipulation.
    Assendelft WJ; Koes BW; Knipschild PG; Bouter LM
    JAMA; 1995 Dec; 274(24):1942-8. PubMed ID: 8568990
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Risk of bias reporting in Cochrane systematic reviews.
    Hopp L
    Int J Nurs Pract; 2015 Oct; 21(5):683-6. PubMed ID: 24621329
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. The value of systematic reviews as research activities in medical education.
    Lang TA
    Acad Med; 2004 Nov; 79(11):1067-72. PubMed ID: 15504773
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Impact of choice of quality appraisal tool for systematic reviews in overviews.
    Pieper D; Mathes T; Eikermann M
    J Evid Based Med; 2014 May; 7(2):72-8. PubMed ID: 25155764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. How do authors of systematic reviews deal with research malpractice and misconduct in original studies? A cross-sectional analysis of systematic reviews and survey of their authors.
    Elia N; von Elm E; Chatagner A; Pöpping DM; Tramèr MR
    BMJ Open; 2016 Mar; 6(3):e010442. PubMed ID: 26936908
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Outcomes in Cochrane systematic reviews addressing four common eye conditions: an evaluation of completeness and comparability.
    Saldanha IJ; Dickersin K; Wang X; Li T
    PLoS One; 2014; 9(10):e109400. PubMed ID: 25329377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews in the emergency medicine literature.
    Kelly KD; Travers A; Dorgan M; Slater L; Rowe BH
    Ann Emerg Med; 2001 Nov; 38(5):518-26. PubMed ID: 11679863
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Quality assessment of systematic reviews or meta-analyses of nursing interventions conducted by Korean reviewers.
    Seo HJ; Kim KU
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2012 Aug; 12():129. PubMed ID: 22928687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Systematic Reviewers in Clinical Neurology Do Not Routinely Search Clinical Trials Registries.
    Sinnett PM; Carr B; Cook G; Mucklerath H; Varney L; Weiher M; Yerokhin V; Vassar M
    PLoS One; 2015; 10(7):e0134596. PubMed ID: 26225564
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. Thoughts about conceptual models, theories, and literature reviews.
    Fawcett J
    Nurs Sci Q; 2013 Jul; 26(3):285-8. PubMed ID: 23818479
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Assessment of the methodological quality of systematic reviews published in the urological literature from 1998 to 2008.
    MacDonald SL; Canfield SE; Fesperman SF; Dahm P
    J Urol; 2010 Aug; 184(2):648-53. PubMed ID: 20639030
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.