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: 36216590)

  • 21. The Yusuf-Peto method was not a robust method for meta-analyses of rare events data from antidepressant trials.
    Sharma T; Gøtzsche PC; Kuss O
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2017 Nov; 91():129-136. PubMed ID: 28802674
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Random-effects meta-analysis of few studies involving rare events.
    Günhan BK; Röver C; Friede T
    Res Synth Methods; 2020 Jan; 11(1):74-90. PubMed ID: 31348846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Meta-analysis of rare events under the assumption of a homogeneous treatment effect.
    Piaget-Rossel R; Taffé P
    Biom J; 2019 Nov; 61(6):1557-1574. PubMed ID: 31172565
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Simulation and data-generation for random-effects network meta-analysis of binary outcome.
    Seide SE; Jensen K; Kieser M
    Stat Med; 2019 Jul; 38(17):3288-3303. PubMed ID: 31074072
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Impact of including or excluding both-armed zero-event studies on using standard meta-analysis methods for rare event outcome: a simulation study.
    Cheng J; Pullenayegum E; Marshall JK; Iorio A; Thabane L
    BMJ Open; 2016 Aug; 6(8):e010983. PubMed ID: 27531725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Meta-analysis methods for risk difference: A comparison of different models.
    Guo J; Xiao M; Chu H; Lin L
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2023 Jan; 32(1):3-21. PubMed ID: 36322093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. A comparison of seven random-effects models for meta-analyses that estimate the summary odds ratio.
    Jackson D; Law M; Stijnen T; Viechtbauer W; White IR
    Stat Med; 2018 Mar; 37(7):1059-1085. PubMed ID: 29315733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. A comparison of methods for meta-analysis of a small number of studies with binary outcomes.
    Mathes T; Kuss O
    Res Synth Methods; 2018 Sep; 9(3):366-381. PubMed ID: 29573180
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Synthesis of evidence from zero-events studies: A comparison of one-stage framework methods.
    Xu C; Furuya-Kanamori L; Lin L
    Res Synth Methods; 2022 Mar; 13(2):176-189. PubMed ID: 34390200
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Estimating risk and rate ratio in rare events meta-analysis with the Mantel-Haenszel estimator and assessing heterogeneity.
    Böhning D; Sangnawakij P; Holling H
    Int J Biostat; 2023 May; 19(1):21-38. PubMed ID: 36306466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. The use of one-stage meta-analytic method based on individual participant data for binary adverse events under the rule of three: a simulation study.
    Cheng LL; Ju K; Cai RL; Xu C
    PeerJ; 2019; 7():e6295. PubMed ID: 30697486
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. An exact test for meta-analysis with binary endpoints.
    Kuss O; Gromann C
    Methods Inf Med; 2007; 46(6):662-8. PubMed ID: 18066416
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Estimation of a common odds ratio under binary cluster sampling.
    Ahn C; Odom-Maryon T
    Stat Med; 1995 Jul; 14(14):1567-76. PubMed ID: 7481193
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Bayesian estimation and testing in random-effects meta-analysis of rare binary events allowing for flexible group variability.
    Zhang M; Barth J; Lim J; Wang X
    Stat Med; 2023 May; 42(11):1699-1721. PubMed ID: 36869639
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. Jackknife empirical likelihood confidence intervals for assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis of rare binary event data.
    Wang G; Cheng Y; Chen M; Wang X
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2021 Aug; 107():106440. PubMed ID: 34015509
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Much ado about nothing: a comparison of the performance of meta-analytical methods with rare events.
    Bradburn MJ; Deeks JJ; Berlin JA; Russell Localio A
    Stat Med; 2007 Jan; 26(1):53-77. PubMed ID: 16596572
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Heterogeneity estimation in meta-analysis of standardized mean differences when the distribution of random effects departs from normal: A Monte Carlo simulation study.
    Blázquez-Rincón D; Sánchez-Meca J; Botella J; Suero M
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2023 Jan; 23(1):19. PubMed ID: 36650428
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.