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 *

122 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34994667)

  • 1. On estimating a constrained bivariate random effects model for meta-analysis of test accuracy studies.
    Baragilly M; Willis BH
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2022 Feb; 31(2):287-299. PubMed ID: 34994667
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Maximum likelihood estimation based on Newton-Raphson iteration for the bivariate random effects model in test accuracy meta-analysis.
    Willis BH; Baragilly M; Coomar D
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2020 Apr; 29(4):1197-1211. PubMed ID: 31184270
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Univariate and bivariate likelihood-based meta-analysis methods performed comparably when marginal sensitivity and specificity were the targets of inference.
    Dahabreh IJ; Trikalinos TA; Lau J; Schmid CH
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2017 Mar; 83():8-17. PubMed ID: 28063915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparing outcomes from tailored meta-analysis with outcomes from a setting specific test accuracy study using routine data of faecal calprotectin testing for inflammatory bowel disease.
    Freeman K; Willis BH; Ryan R; Taylor-Phillips S; Clarke A
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2022 Jul; 22(1):192. PubMed ID: 35820893
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A double SIMEX approach for bivariate random-effects meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies.
    Guolo A
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Jan; 17(1):6. PubMed ID: 28077079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Skew-normal random-effects model for meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies.
    Negeri ZF; Beyene J
    Biom J; 2020 Sep; 62(5):1223-1244. PubMed ID: 32022315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. What is the test's accuracy in my practice population? Tailored meta-analysis provides a plausible estimate.
    Willis BH; Hyde CJ
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 Aug; 68(8):847-54. PubMed ID: 25479685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Tailored meta-analysis: an investigation of the correlation between the test positive rate and prevalence.
    Willis BH; Coomar D; Baragilly M
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2019 Feb; 106():1-9. PubMed ID: 30278213
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Estimating a test's accuracy using tailored meta-analysis-How setting-specific data may aid study selection.
    Willis BH; Hyde CJ
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2014 May; 67(5):538-46. PubMed ID: 24447592
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. An evaluation of computational methods for aggregate data meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies.
    Zhao Y; Khan B; Negeri ZF
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2024 May; 24(1):111. PubMed ID: 38730436
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A new method for synthesizing test accuracy data outperformed the bivariate method.
    Furuya-Kanamori L; Kostoulas P; Doi SAR
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2021 Apr; 132():51-58. PubMed ID: 33333166
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. An empirical comparison of three methods for multiple cutoff diagnostic test meta-analysis of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) depression screening tool using published data vs individual level data.
    Benedetti A; Levis B; Rücker G; Jones HE; Schumacher M; Ioannidis JPA; Thombs B;
    Res Synth Methods; 2020 Nov; 11(6):833-848. PubMed ID: 32896096
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Bivariate random-effects meta-analysis and the estimation of between-study correlation.
    Riley RD; Abrams KR; Sutton AJ; Lambert PC; Thompson JR
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2007 Jan; 7():3. PubMed ID: 17222330
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Robust bivariate random-effects model for accommodating outlying and influential studies in meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies.
    Negeri ZF; Beyene J
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2020 Nov; 29(11):3308-3325. PubMed ID: 32469266
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A mixed effect model for bivariate meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies using a copula representation of the random effects distribution.
    Nikoloulopoulos AK
    Stat Med; 2015 Dec; 34(29):3842-65. PubMed ID: 26234584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Bivariate meta-analysis of predictive values of diagnostic tests can be an alternative to bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity.
    Leeflang MM; Deeks JJ; Rutjes AW; Reitsma JB; Bossuyt PM
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2012 Oct; 65(10):1088-97. PubMed ID: 22742916
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Nonparametric meta-analysis for diagnostic accuracy studies.
    Zapf A; Hoyer A; Kramer K; Kuss O
    Stat Med; 2015 Dec; 34(29):3831-41. PubMed ID: 26174020
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Median bias reduction in random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression.
    Kyriakou S; Kosmidis I; Sartori N
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2019 Jun; 28(6):1622-1636. PubMed ID: 29717942
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A SIMEX approach for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies with attention to ROC curves.
    Guolo A; Pesantez Cabrera TE
    Int J Biostat; 2023 Nov; 19(2):455-471. PubMed ID: 36288630
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.