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 *

118 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34505983)

  • 1. Empirical Comparisons of 12 Meta-analysis Methods for Synthesizing Proportions of Binary Outcomes.
    Lin L; Xu C; Chu H
    J Gen Intern Med; 2022 Feb; 37(2):308-317. PubMed ID: 34505983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Meta-analysis of Proportions Using Generalized Linear Mixed Models.
    Lin L; Chu H
    Epidemiology; 2020 Sep; 31(5):713-717. PubMed ID: 32657954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Estimating relative risks in multicenter studies with a small number of centers - which methods to use? A simulation study.
    Pedroza C; Truong VTT
    Trials; 2017 Nov; 18(1):512. PubMed ID: 29096682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A note on effective sample size for constructing confidence intervals for the difference of two proportions.
    Liu GF
    Pharm Stat; 2012; 11(2):163-9. PubMed ID: 22337507
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Laplace approximation, penalized quasi-likelihood, and adaptive Gauss-Hermite quadrature for generalized linear mixed models: towards meta-analysis of binary outcome with sparse data.
    Ju K; Lin L; Chu H; Cheng LL; Xu C
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2020 Jun; 20(1):152. PubMed ID: 32539721
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Meta-analysis of binary outcomes via generalized linear mixed models: a simulation study.
    Bakbergenuly I; Kulinskaya E
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2018 Jul; 18(1):70. PubMed ID: 29973146
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Using marginal standardisation to estimate relative risk without dichotomising continuous outcomes.
    Chen Y; Ning Y; Kao SL; Støer NC; Müller-Riemenschneider F; Venkataraman K; Khoo EYH; Tai ES; Tan CS
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Jul; 19(1):165. PubMed ID: 31357938
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Power difference in a χ
    Miller ML; Roe DJ; Hu C; Bell ML
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2020 Mar; 20(1):50. PubMed ID: 32122312
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Empirical comparisons of meta-analysis methods for diagnostic studies: a meta-epidemiological study.
    Rosenberger KJ; Chu H; Lin L
    BMJ Open; 2022 May; 12(5):e055336. PubMed ID: 35534072
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Analysis of multicenter clinical trials with very low event rates.
    Kim J; Troxel AB; Halpern SD; Volpp KG; Kahan BC; Morris TP; Harhay MO
    Trials; 2020 Nov; 21(1):917. PubMed ID: 33168073
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A comparison of analytic approaches for individual patient data meta-analyses with binary outcomes.
    Thomas D; Platt R; Benedetti A
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Feb; 17(1):28. PubMed ID: 28202011
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Meta-analysis with zero-event studies: a comparative study with application to COVID-19 data.
    Wei JJ; Lin EX; Shi JD; Yang K; Hu ZL; Zeng XT; Tong TJ
    Mil Med Res; 2021 Jul; 8(1):41. PubMed ID: 34217371
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Random-effects meta-analysis models for the odds ratio in the case of rare events under different data-generating models: A simulation study.
    Jansen K; Holling H
    Biom J; 2023 Mar; 65(3):e2200132. PubMed ID: 36216590
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparing denominator degrees of freedom approximations for the generalized linear mixed model in analyzing binary outcome in small sample cluster-randomized trials.
    Li P; Redden DT
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2015 Apr; 15():38. PubMed ID: 25899170
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A comparison of methods for the analysis of binomial clustered outcomes in behavioral research.
    Ferrari A; Comelli M
    J Neurosci Methods; 2016 Dec; 274():131-140. PubMed ID: 27751892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The normality assumption on between-study random effects was questionable in a considerable number of Cochrane meta-analyses.
    Liu Z; Al Amer FM; Xiao M; Xu C; Furuya-Kanamori L; Hong H; Siegel L; Lin L
    BMC Med; 2023 Mar; 21(1):112. PubMed ID: 36978059
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Pitfalls of using the risk ratio in meta-analysis.
    Bakbergenuly I; Hoaglin DC; Kulinskaya E
    Res Synth Methods; 2019 Sep; 10(3):398-419. PubMed ID: 30854785
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Assessing method agreement for paired repeated binary measurements administered by multiple raters.
    Wang W; Lin N; Oberhaus JD; Avidan MS
    Stat Med; 2020 Feb; 39(3):279-293. PubMed ID: 31788847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.