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 *

112 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36150550)

  • 1. A method was developed for correcting the bias in the usual study weights in meta-analyses.
    Walter SD; Balakrishnan N
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2022 Dec; 152():23-29. PubMed ID: 36150550
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.
    Crider K; Williams J; Qi YP; Gutman J; Yeung L; Mai C; Finkelstain J; Mehta S; Pons-Duran C; Menéndez C; Moraleda C; Rogers L; Daniels K; Green P
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2022 Feb; 2(2022):. PubMed ID: 36321557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Estimation of standard deviations and inverse-variance weights from an observed range.
    Walter SD; Rychtář J; Taylor D; Balakrishnan N
    Stat Med; 2022 Jan; 41(2):242-257. PubMed ID: 34747027
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Correction for bias in meta-analysis of little-replicated studies.
    Doncaster CP; Spake R
    Methods Ecol Evol; 2018 Mar; 9(3):634-644. PubMed ID: 29938012
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Correcting the bias in estimation of genetic variances contributed by individual QTL.
    Luo L; Mao Y; Xu S
    Genetica; 2003 Oct; 119(2):107-13. PubMed ID: 14620950
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A note on variance estimation in random effects meta-regression.
    Sidik K; Jonkman JN
    J Biopharm Stat; 2005; 15(5):823-38. PubMed ID: 16078388
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A Q statistic with constant weights for assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis.
    Kulinskaya E; Hoaglin DC; Bakbergenuly I; Newman J
    Res Synth Methods; 2021 Nov; 12(6):711-730. PubMed ID: 33969638
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Evaluation of various estimators for standardized mean difference in meta-analysis.
    Lin L; Aloe AM
    Stat Med; 2021 Jan; 40(2):403-426. PubMed ID: 33180373
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Improving the accuracy of two-sample summary-data Mendelian randomization: moving beyond the NOME assumption.
    Bowden J; Del Greco M F; Minelli C; Zhao Q; Lawlor DA; Sheehan NA; Thompson J; Davey Smith G
    Int J Epidemiol; 2019 Jun; 48(3):728-742. PubMed ID: 30561657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A simplification and implementation of random-effects meta-analyses based on the exact distribution of Cochran's Q.
    Preuß M; Ziegler A
    Methods Inf Med; 2014; 53(1):54-61. PubMed ID: 24317521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Combining study outcome measures using dominance adjusted weights.
    Makambi KH; Lu W
    Res Synth Methods; 2013 Jun; 4(2):188-97. PubMed ID: 26053657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Transforming the Model T: random effects meta-analysis with stable weights.
    Malloy MJ; Prendergast LA; Staudte RG
    Stat Med; 2013 May; 32(11):1842-64. PubMed ID: 23097338
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Measuring the statistical validity of summary meta-analysis and meta-regression results for use in clinical practice.
    Willis BH; Riley RD
    Stat Med; 2017 Sep; 36(21):3283-3301. PubMed ID: 28620945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Assessing the suitability of summary data for two-sample Mendelian randomization analyses using MR-Egger regression: the role of the I2 statistic.
    Bowden J; Del Greco M F; Minelli C; Davey Smith G; Sheehan NA; Thompson JR
    Int J Epidemiol; 2016 Dec; 45(6):1961-1974. PubMed ID: 27616674
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A bias correction method in meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials with no adjustments for zero-inflated outcomes.
    Zhou Z; Xie M; Huh D; Mun EY
    Stat Med; 2021 Nov; 40(26):5894-5909. PubMed ID: 34476827
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Estimating the proportion of studies missing for meta-analysis due to publication bias.
    Formann AK
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2008 Sep; 29(5):732-9. PubMed ID: 18586577
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Bias and precision of methods for estimating the difference in restricted mean survival time from an individual patient data meta-analysis.
    Lueza B; Rotolo F; Bonastre J; Pignon JP; Michiels S
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2016 Mar; 16():37. PubMed ID: 27025706
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

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

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.