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 *

134 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34327842)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis.
    Peters JL; Sutton AJ; Jones DR; Abrams KR; Rushton L
    JAMA; 2006 Feb; 295(6):676-80. PubMed ID: 16467236
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Assessment of regression-based methods to adjust for publication bias through a comprehensive simulation study.
    Moreno SG; Sutton AJ; Ades AE; Stanley TD; Abrams KR; Peters JL; Cooper NJ
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2009 Jan; 9():2. PubMed ID: 19138428
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Hartung-Knapp method is not always conservative compared with fixed-effect meta-analysis.
    Wiksten A; Rücker G; Schwarzer G
    Stat Med; 2016 Jul; 35(15):2503-15. PubMed ID: 26842654
    [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. Performance of the trim and fill method in the presence of publication bias and between-study heterogeneity.
    Peters JL; Sutton AJ; Jones DR; Abrams KR; Rushton L
    Stat Med; 2007 Nov; 26(25):4544-62. PubMed ID: 17476644
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A new improved graphical and quantitative method for detecting bias in meta-analysis.
    Furuya-Kanamori L; Barendregt JJ; Doi SAR
    Int J Evid Based Healthc; 2018 Dec; 16(4):195-203. PubMed ID: 29621038
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis via inverse probability weighting using clinical trial registries.
    Huang A; Morikawa K; Friede T; Hattori S
    Biometrics; 2023 Sep; 79(3):2089-2102. PubMed ID: 36602873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Approaches to Assessing and Adjusting for Selective Outcome Reporting in Meta-analysis.
    Jackson JL; Balk EM; Hyun N; Kuriyama A
    J Gen Intern Med; 2022 Apr; 37(5):1247-1253. PubMed ID: 34669145
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A Bayesian "fill-in" method for correcting for publication bias in meta-analysis.
    Du H; Liu F; Wang L
    Psychol Methods; 2017 Dec; 22(4):799-817. PubMed ID: 29265851
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Heterogeneity estimates in a biased world.
    Hönekopp J; Linden AH
    PLoS One; 2022; 17(2):e0262809. PubMed ID: 35113897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A comparison of methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis.
    Macaskill P; Walter SD; Irwig L
    Stat Med; 2001 Feb; 20(4):641-54. PubMed ID: 11223905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Selecting the best meta-analytic estimator for evidence-based practice: a simulation study.
    Doi SAR; Furuya-Kanamori L
    Int J Evid Based Healthc; 2020 Mar; 18(1):86-94. PubMed ID: 31764215
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.