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 *

127 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36380454)

  • 1. A guide to using technological applications to facilitate systematic reviews.
    Gibbs KD; Loveless J; Crane S
    Worldviews Evid Based Nurs; 2022 Dec; 19(6):442-449. PubMed ID: 36380454
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. How to conduct systematic reviews more expeditiously?
    Tsertsvadze A; Chen YF; Moher D; Sutcliffe P; McCarthy N
    Syst Rev; 2015 Nov; 4():160. PubMed ID: 26563648
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the health sciences: Best practice methods for research syntheses.
    Johnson BT; Hennessy EA
    Soc Sci Med; 2019 Jul; 233():237-251. PubMed ID: 31233957
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A decision tool to help researchers make decisions about including systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions.
    Pollock M; Fernandes RM; Newton AS; Scott SD; Hartling L
    Syst Rev; 2019 Jan; 8(1):29. PubMed ID: 30670086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Key Steps in Conducting Systematic Reviews for Underpinning Clinical Practice Guidelines: Methodology of the European Association of Urology.
    Knoll T; Omar MI; Maclennan S; Hernández V; Canfield S; Yuan Y; Bruins M; Marconi L; Van Poppel H; N'Dow J; Sylvester R;
    Eur Urol; 2018 Feb; 73(2):290-300. PubMed ID: 28917594
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The future of Cochrane Neonatal.
    Soll RF; Ovelman C; McGuire W
    Early Hum Dev; 2020 Nov; 150():105191. PubMed ID: 33036834
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Toolkit of methodological resources to conduct systematic reviews.
    Roqué M; Martínez-García L; Solà I; Alonso-Coello P; Bonfill X; Zamora J
    F1000Res; 2020; 9():82. PubMed ID: 33082931
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. A Guide to Writing a Qualitative Systematic Review Protocol to Enhance Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing and Health Care.
    Butler A; Hall H; Copnell B
    Worldviews Evid Based Nurs; 2016 Jun; 13(3):241-9. PubMed ID: 26790142
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Guidance on review type selection for health technology assessments: key factors and considerations for deciding when to conduct a de novo systematic review, an update of a systematic review, or an overview of systematic reviews.
    Kim JSM; Pollock M; Kaunelis D; Weeks L
    Syst Rev; 2022 Sep; 11(1):206. PubMed ID: 36167611
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Issues in methodological research: perspectives from researchers and commissioners.
    Lilford RJ; Richardson A; Stevens A; Fitzpatrick R; Edwards S; Rock F; Hutton JL
    Health Technol Assess; 2001; 5(8):1-57. PubMed ID: 11368832
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Interventions during pregnancy to prevent preterm birth: an overview of Cochrane systematic reviews.
    Medley N; Vogel JP; Care A; Alfirevic Z
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2018 Nov; 11(11):CD012505. PubMed ID: 30480756
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Web-Based Software Tools for Systematic Literature Review in Medicine: Systematic Search and Feature Analysis.
    Cowie K; Rahmatullah A; Hardy N; Holub K; Kallmes K
    JMIR Med Inform; 2022 May; 10(5):e33219. PubMed ID: 35499859
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The Systematic Review Toolbox: keeping up to date with tools to support evidence synthesis.
    Johnson EE; O'Keefe H; Sutton A; Marshall C
    Syst Rev; 2022 Dec; 11(1):258. PubMed ID: 36457048
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Low methodological quality of systematic reviews on acupuncture: a cross-sectional study.
    Ho L; Ke FYT; Wong CHL; Wu IXY; Cheung AKL; Mao C; Chung VCH
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 Oct; 21(1):237. PubMed ID: 34717563
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Language Consideration and Methodological Transparency in "Systematic" Reviews of Animal Toxicity Studies.
    Alpi KM; Vo TA; Dorman DC
    Int J Toxicol; 2019; 38(2):135-145. PubMed ID: 30791753
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.