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.
109 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38410861)
21. A bias-corrected meta-analysis model for combining, studies of different types and quality. Verde PE Biom J; 2021 Feb; 63(2):406-422. PubMed ID: 32996196 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. An empirical comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in 12 894 meta-analyses. Langan D; Higgins JP; Simmonds M Res Synth Methods; 2015 Jun; 6(2):195-205. PubMed ID: 26053175 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Dealing with missing outcome data in meta-analysis. Mavridis D; White IR Res Synth Methods; 2020 Jan; 11(1):2-13. PubMed ID: 30991455 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Adjustment for baseline characteristics in randomized trials using logistic regression: sample-based model versus true model. Perneger T; Combescure C; Poncet A Trials; 2023 Feb; 24(1):107. PubMed ID: 36782238 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Controversy of oral contraceptives and risk of rheumatoid arthritis: meta-analysis of conflicting studies and review of conflicting meta-analyses with special emphasis on analysis of heterogeneity. Pladevall-Vila M; Delclos GL; Varas C; Guyer H; Brugués-Tarradellas J; Anglada-Arisa A Am J Epidemiol; 1996 Jul; 144(1):1-14. PubMed ID: 8659479 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Impact of Selection Bias on Treatment Effect Size Estimates in Randomized Trials of Oral Health Interventions: A Meta-epidemiological Study. Saltaji H; Armijo-Olivo S; Cummings GG; Amin M; da Costa BR; Flores-Mir C J Dent Res; 2018 Jan; 97(1):5-13. PubMed ID: 28813182 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Influence of Sponsorship Bias on Treatment Effect Size Estimates in Randomized Trials of Oral Health Interventions: A Meta-epidemiological Study. Saltaji H; Armijo-Olivo S; Cummings GG; Amin M; Major PW; da Costa BR; Flores-Mir C J Evid Based Dent Pract; 2021 Jun; 21(2):101544. PubMed ID: 34391563 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Response to letter to the editor from Dr Rahman Shiri: The challenging topic of suicide across occupational groups. Niedhammer I; Milner A; Witt K; Klingelschmidt J; Khireddine-Medouni I; Alexopoulos EC; Toivanen S; Chastang JF; LaMontagne AD Scand J Work Environ Health; 2018 Jan; 44(1):108-110. PubMed ID: 29218357 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. [Meta-analysis of the Italian studies on short-term effects of air pollution]. Biggeri A; Bellini P; Terracini B; Epidemiol Prev; 2001; 25(2 Suppl):1-71. PubMed ID: 11515188 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Association Between Lack of Blinding and Mortality Results in Critical Care Randomized Controlled Trials: A Meta-Epidemiological Study. Martin GL; Trioux T; Gaudry S; Tubach F; Hajage D; Dechartres A Crit Care Med; 2021 Oct; 49(10):1800-1811. PubMed ID: 33927122 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Bias, coverage, and asymptotic behaviour of random effects meta-analysis: a clinically driven simulation study. Johnson K; Hayen A; Lassere MND; Mengersen K JBI Evid Implement; 2020 Dec; 18(4):355-367. PubMed ID: 33570319 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Assessing Heterogeneity in Random-Effects Meta-analysis. Langan D Methods Mol Biol; 2022; 2345():67-89. PubMed ID: 34550584 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Philips Z; Ginnelly L; Sculpher M; Claxton K; Golder S; Riemsma R; Woolacoot N; Glanville J Health Technol Assess; 2004 Sep; 8(36):iii-iv, ix-xi, 1-158. PubMed ID: 15361314 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Using audit information to adjust parameter estimates for data errors in clinical trials. Shepherd BE; Shaw PA; Dodd LE Clin Trials; 2012 Dec; 9(6):721-9. PubMed ID: 22848072 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Adjustment for reporting bias in network meta-analysis of antidepressant trials. Trinquart L; Chatellier G; Ravaud P BMC Med Res Methodol; 2012 Sep; 12():150. PubMed ID: 23016799 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Ten questions to consider when interpreting results of a meta-epidemiological study-the MetaBLIND study as a case. Moustgaard H; Jones HE; Savović J; Clayton GL; Sterne JA; Higgins JP; Hróbjartsson A Res Synth Methods; 2020 Mar; 11(2):260-274. PubMed ID: 31851427 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Does ultrasonic activation of irrigation during endodontic therapy improve the clinical and microbiological effects? Shahravan A; Nekouei AH Evid Based Dent; 2022 Sep; 23(3):118-119. PubMed ID: 36151289 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Confidence intervals for random effects meta-analysis and robustness to publication bias. Henmi M; Copas JB Stat Med; 2010 Dec; 29(29):2969-83. PubMed ID: 20963748 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Comparison of bias adjustment methods in meta-analysis suggests that quality effects modeling may have less limitations than other approaches. Stone JC; Glass K; Munn Z; Tugwell P; Doi SAR J Clin Epidemiol; 2020 Jan; 117():36-45. PubMed ID: 31541691 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]