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: 34119646)

  • 21. Controlling for continuous confounders in epidemiologic research.
    Brenner H; Blettner M
    Epidemiology; 1997 Jul; 8(4):429-34. PubMed ID: 9209859
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Methodology, measures and the clinician.
    Ricci S
    Cerebrovasc Dis; 2012; 33(2):97. PubMed ID: 22327265
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Weighted estimation for confounded binary outcomes subject to misclassification.
    Gravel CA; Platt RW
    Stat Med; 2018 Feb; 37(3):425-436. PubMed ID: 29082530
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Descriptive Statistics: Reporting the Answers to the 5 Basic Questions of Who, What, Why, When, Where, and a Sixth, So What?
    Vetter TR
    Anesth Analg; 2017 Nov; 125(5):1797-1802. PubMed ID: 28891910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Evolution in statistics:
    Curran-Everett D
    Adv Physiol Educ; 2020 Jun; 44(2):221-224. PubMed ID: 32412384
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Finding the power to reduce publication bias.
    Stanley TD; Doucouliagos H; Ioannidis JP
    Stat Med; 2017 May; 36(10):1580-1598. PubMed ID: 28127782
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Likelihood-Based Random-Effect Meta-Analysis of Binary Events.
    Amatya A; Bhaumik DK; Normand SL; Greenhouse J; Kaizar E; Neelon B; Gibbons RD
    J Biopharm Stat; 2015; 25(5):984-1004. PubMed ID: 24918874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Testing for publication bias in diagnostic meta-analysis: a simulation study.
    Bürkner PC; Doebler P
    Stat Med; 2014 Aug; 33(18):3061-77. PubMed ID: 24753050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. GRADE guidelines: 21 part 1. Study design, risk of bias, and indirectness in rating the certainty across a body of evidence for test accuracy.
    Schünemann HJ; Mustafa RA; Brozek J; Steingart KR; Leeflang M; Murad MH; Bossuyt P; Glasziou P; Jaeschke R; Lange S; Meerpohl J; Langendam M; Hultcrantz M; Vist GE; Akl EA; Helfand M; Santesso N; Hooft L; Scholten R; Rosen M; Rutjes A; Crowther M; Muti P; Raatz H; Ansari MT; Williams J; Kunz R; Harris J; Rodriguez IA; Kohli M; Guyatt GH;
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2020 Jun; 122():129-141. PubMed ID: 32060007
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. GRADE guidelines: 21 part 2. Test accuracy: inconsistency, imprecision, publication bias, and other domains for rating the certainty of evidence and presenting it in evidence profiles and summary of findings tables.
    Schünemann HJ; Mustafa RA; Brozek J; Steingart KR; Leeflang M; Murad MH; Bossuyt P; Glasziou P; Jaeschke R; Lange S; Meerpohl J; Langendam M; Hultcrantz M; Vist GE; Akl EA; Helfand M; Santesso N; Hooft L; Scholten R; Rosen M; Rutjes A; Crowther M; Muti P; Raatz H; Ansari MT; Williams J; Kunz R; Harris J; Rodriguez IA; Kohli M; Guyatt GH;
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2020 Jun; 122():142-152. PubMed ID: 32058069
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. The relative merits of risk ratios and odds ratios.
    Cummings P
    Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med; 2009 May; 163(5):438-45. PubMed ID: 19414690
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. How to deal with measures of association: a short guide for the clinician.
    Knol MJ; Algra A; Groenwold RH
    Cerebrovasc Dis; 2012; 33(2):98-103. PubMed ID: 22156574
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Case-control matching: effects, misconceptions, and recommendations.
    Mansournia MA; Jewell NP; Greenland S
    Eur J Epidemiol; 2018 Jan; 33(1):5-14. PubMed ID: 29101596
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Using Causal Diagrams to Improve the Design and Interpretation of Medical Research.
    Etminan M; Collins GS; Mansournia MA
    Chest; 2020 Jul; 158(1S):S21-S28. PubMed ID: 32658648
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Opinions and potential solutions regarding dissemination bias from funding agencies of biomedical research in Europe.
    Pardo-Hernandez H; Urrútia G; Meerpohl JJ; Marušić A; Wager E; Bonfill X;
    J Eval Clin Pract; 2018 Feb; 24(1):72-79. PubMed ID: 28090730
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. A unified framework for bias assessment in clinical research.
    Stone JC; Glass K; Clark J; Munn Z; Tugwell P; Doi SAR
    Int J Evid Based Healthc; 2019 Jun; 17(2):106-120. PubMed ID: 31094882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. GRADE Guidance: 31. Assessing the certainty across a body of evidence for comparative test accuracy.
    Yang B; Mustafa RA; Bossuyt PM; Brozek J; Hultcrantz M; Leeflang MMG; Schünemann HJ; Langendam MW
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2021 Aug; 136():146-156. PubMed ID: 33864930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Assessment of publication bias and outcome reporting bias in systematic reviews of health services and delivery research: A meta-epidemiological study.
    Ayorinde AA; Williams I; Mannion R; Song F; Skrybant M; Lilford RJ; Chen YF
    PLoS One; 2020; 15(1):e0227580. PubMed ID: 31999702
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Redefining effect modification.
    Doi SA; Abdulmajeed J; Xu C
    J Evid Based Med; 2022 Sep; 15(3):192-197. PubMed ID: 36138553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Publication bias in epidemiological studies.
    Siddiqi N
    Cent Eur J Public Health; 2011 Jun; 19(2):118-20. PubMed ID: 21739906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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