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 *

174 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35580235)

  • 1. Applying Appraisal Tools in Aphasia Systematic Reviews: A Tutorial.
    Patterson JP; Raymer AM
    Am J Speech Lang Pathol; 2022 Oct; 31(5S):2291-2300. PubMed ID: 35580235
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A systematic review of the quality of distal radius systematic reviews: Methodology and reporting assessment.
    Belloti JC; Okamura A; Scheeren J; Faloppa F; Ynoe de Moraes V
    PLoS One; 2019; 14(1):e0206895. PubMed ID: 30673700
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparison of methodological quality rating of systematic reviews on neuropathic pain using AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR.
    Dosenovic S; Jelicic Kadic A; Vucic K; Markovina N; Pieper D; Puljak L
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2018 May; 18(1):37. PubMed ID: 29739339
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Different Approaches to Appraising Systematic Reviews of Digital Interventions for Physical Activity Promotion Using AMSTAR 2 Tool: Cross-Sectional Study.
    De Santis KK; Matthias K
    Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2023 Mar; 20(6):. PubMed ID: 36981598
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Quality of reporting among systematic reviews underpinning the ESC/ACC guidelines on ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death.
    Garrett EP; Hightower B; Walters C; Srouji D; Chronister J; Torgerson T; Hartwell M; McIntire R; Love M; Vassar M
    BMJ Evid Based Med; 2022 Dec; 27(6):352-360. PubMed ID: 35277437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality.
    Pussegoda K; Turner L; Garritty C; Mayhew A; Skidmore B; Stevens A; Boutron I; Sarkis-Onofre R; Bjerre LM; Hróbjartsson A; Altman DG; Moher D
    Syst Rev; 2017 Jul; 6(1):131. PubMed ID: 28720117
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Abstract analysis method facilitates filtering low-methodological quality and high-bias risk systematic reviews on psoriasis interventions.
    Gómez-García F; Ruano J; Aguilar-Luque M; Alcalde-Mellado P; Gay-Mimbrera J; Hernández-Romero JL; Sanz-Cabanillas JL; Maestre-López B; González-Padilla M; Carmona-Fernández PJ; García-Nieto AV; Isla-Tejera B
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Dec; 17(1):180. PubMed ID: 29284417
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. An analysis of the evidence underpinning the national comprehensive cancer network practice guidelines.
    Love M; Staggs J; Walters C; Wayant C; Torgerson T; Hartwell M; Anderson JM; Lillie A; Myers K; Brachtenbach T; Derby M; Vassar M
    Crit Rev Oncol Hematol; 2022 Jan; 169():103549. PubMed ID: 34838981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Meningioma systematic reviews and meta-analyses: an assessment of reporting and methodological quality.
    George AM; Gupta S; Keshwara SM; Mustafa MA; Gillespie CS; Richardson GE; Steele AC; Zamanipoor Najafabadi AH; Dirven L; Marson AG; Islim AI; Jenkinson MD; Millward CP
    Br J Neurosurg; 2022 Dec; 36(6):678-685. PubMed ID: 36263847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Evaluation of the reliability, usability, and applicability of AMSTAR, AMSTAR 2, and ROBIS: protocol for a descriptive analytic study.
    Gates A; Gates M; Duarte G; Cary M; Becker M; Prediger B; Vandermeer B; Fernandes RM; Pieper D; Hartling L
    Syst Rev; 2018 Jun; 7(1):85. PubMed ID: 29898777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Evaluation of AMSTAR to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions.
    Pollock M; Fernandes RM; Hartling L
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Mar; 17(1):48. PubMed ID: 28335734
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses available for bovine and equine veterinarians and quality of abstract reporting: A scoping review.
    Buczinski S; Ferraro S; Vandeweerd JM
    Prev Vet Med; 2018 Dec; 161():50-59. PubMed ID: 30466658
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study.
    Pussegoda K; Turner L; Garritty C; Mayhew A; Skidmore B; Stevens A; Boutron I; Sarkis-Onofre R; Bjerre LM; Hróbjartsson A; Altman DG; Moher D
    Syst Rev; 2017 Jun; 6(1):117. PubMed ID: 28629396
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Methodological and Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews Published in the Highest Ranking Journals in the Field of Pain.
    Riado Minguez D; Kowalski M; Vallve Odena M; Longin Pontzen D; Jelicic Kadic A; Jeric M; Dosenovic S; Jakus D; Vrdoljak M; Poklepovic Pericic T; Sapunar D; Puljak L
    Anesth Analg; 2017 Oct; 125(4):1348-1354. PubMed ID: 28678074
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Methodological quality of systematic reviews of the local management of anogenital warts: a systematic review using AMSTAR II, ROBIS and PRISMA.
    Desmoulin A; Joly E; Tran P; Derancourt C; Bertolotti A
    Sex Transm Infect; 2023 Aug; 99(5):345-347. PubMed ID: 36948589
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Critically Low Confidence in the Results Produced by Spine Surgery Systematic Reviews: An AMSTAR-2 Evaluation From 4 Spine Journals.
    Dettori JR; Skelly AC; Brodt ED
    Global Spine J; 2020 Aug; 10(5):667-673. PubMed ID: 32677574
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Reporting and Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Nursing Interventions in Patients With Alzheimer's Disease: General Implications of the Findings.
    Sun X; Zhou X; Zhang Y; Liu H
    J Nurs Scholarsh; 2019 May; 51(3):308-316. PubMed ID: 30806019
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Methodological quality of systematic reviews referenced in clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of opioid use disorder.
    Ross A; Rankin J; Beaman J; Murray K; Sinnett P; Riddle R; Haskins J; Vassar M
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(8):e0181927. PubMed ID: 28771633
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. PRISMA and AMSTAR show systematic reviews on health literacy and cancer screening are of good quality.
    Sharma S; Oremus M
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2018 Jul; 99():123-131. PubMed ID: 29654821
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analysis with protocols in Diabetes Mellitus Type II: A systematic review.
    Rainkie DC; Abedini ZS; Abdelkader NN
    PLoS One; 2020; 15(12):e0243091. PubMed ID: 33326429
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.