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 *

192 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3409823)

  • 1. [The quality of measurement methods and its statistical estimation].
    Läärä E; Aro S
    Duodecim; 1988; 104(1):40-52. PubMed ID: 3409823
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Study design for the evaluation of diagnostic tests.
    Daya S
    Semin Reprod Endocrinol; 1996 May; 14(2):101-9. PubMed ID: 8796932
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Cautionary tales in the clinical interpretation of studies of diagnostic tests.
    Scott IA; Greenberg PB; Poole PJ
    Intern Med J; 2008 Feb; 38(2):120-9. PubMed ID: 17645501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Are reporting standards of diagnostic test evaluation unrealistic?
    Lassere M
    J Rheumatol; 2010 Feb; 37(2):220-2. PubMed ID: 20147476
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: part 5. Diagnostic accuracy studies.
    Manchikanti L; Derby R; Wolfer L; Singh V; Datta S; Hirsch JA
    Pain Physician; 2009; 12(3):517-40. PubMed ID: 19461821
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Sample size calculations for evaluating a diagnostic test when the gold standard is missing at random.
    Kosinski AS; Chen Y; Lyles RH
    Stat Med; 2011 Jan; 30(2):200. PubMed ID: 21204125
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. [Design and analysis of a study on reliability and validity of diagnostic tests in urological clinical research].
    Fernández Pérez C; Moreno Sierra J; Barreales Tolosa L; Ramírez de Molina V
    Arch Esp Urol; 2003; 56(6):645-56. PubMed ID: 12958999
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Regarding the paper 'Sample size calculations for evaluating a diagnostic test when the gold standard is missing at random'.
    Skaik YA
    Stat Med; 2010 Oct; 29(24):2568. PubMed ID: 20954220
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Bayesian bootstrap estimation of ROC curve.
    Gu J; Ghosal S; Roy A
    Stat Med; 2008 Nov; 27(26):5407-20. PubMed ID: 18613217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A review of solutions for diagnostic accuracy studies with an imperfect or missing reference standard.
    Reitsma JB; Rutjes AW; Khan KS; Coomarasamy A; Bossuyt PM
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Aug; 62(8):797-806. PubMed ID: 19447581
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Statistical topics in the laboratory sciences.
    Parvin CA
    Methods Mol Biol; 2007; 404():353-75. PubMed ID: 18450059
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The use of imperfect diagnostic tests had an impact on prevalence estimation.
    Ihorst G; Forster J; Petersen G; Werchau H; Rohwedder A; Schumacher M
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2007 Sep; 60(9):902-10. PubMed ID: 17689806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [The measurement parameters and its significance of diagnostic tests].
    Zhang ZY; Zheng JW; Yang C; Zhang SY
    Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue; 2004 Jun; 13(3):161-3. PubMed ID: 15269847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Meta-analysis methods for diagnostic accuracy.
    Begg CB
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Nov; 61(11):1081-2; discussion 1083-4. PubMed ID: 19208369
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [Systematic reviews in practice. X. Searching, selecting and the methodological assessment of diagnostic evaluation research].
    Devillé WL; Bossuyt PM; de Vet HC; Bezemer PD; Bouter LM; Assendelft WJ
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2002 Nov; 146(48):2281-4. PubMed ID: 12497754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [Evaluation of diagnostic methods].
    Doyon F; Hill C
    J Radiol; 2001 Feb; 82(2):117-25. PubMed ID: 11428206
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. General radiologists' diagnostic accuracy: incomplete presentation of data casts doubt on study's conclusions.
    Zivian MT; Gershater R; Erly WK; Ashdown BC; Lucio RW
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2005 Feb; 184(2):697-9. PubMed ID: 15671405
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Using extended Rasch models to assess validity of diagnostic tests in the presence of a reference standard.
    Viallon V; Ecosse E; Mesbah M; Pouchot J; Coste J
    J Appl Meas; 2012; 13(4):376-93. PubMed ID: 23270981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Reference values: no need for confusion.
    Obuchowski NA
    J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2009 Jun; 137(6):1572-3. PubMed ID: 19464491
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Diagnostic tests: a statistical review.
    Schulzer M
    Muscle Nerve; 1994 Jul; 17(7):815-9. PubMed ID: 8008012
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.