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 *

110 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 39047919)

  • 1. Analysis of risk of bias assessments in a sample of intervention systematic reviews, part I: many aspects of conduct and reporting need improvement.
    Kolaski K; Clarke M; Rathnayake D; Romeiser Logan L
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2024 Oct; 174():111480. PubMed ID: 39047919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Analysis of risk of bias assessments in a sample of intervention systematic reviews, Part II: focus on risk of bias tools reveals few meet current appraisal standards.
    Kolaski K; Clarke M; Logan LR
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2024 Oct; 174():111460. PubMed ID: 39025376
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Methodological and reporting quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the association between sleep duration and hypertension.
    Yang Q; Xian H; Cheng X; Wu X; Meng J; Chen W; Zeng Z
    Syst Rev; 2024 Aug; 13(1):211. PubMed ID: 39107813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Risk of bias assessments and reporting quality of systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials examining acupuncture for depression: An overview and meta-epidemiology study.
    Luo S; Long Y; Xiao W; Wang X; Chen R; Guo Q; Liu J; Shao R; Du L; Chen M
    J Evid Based Med; 2020 Feb; 13(1):25-33. PubMed ID: 32112515
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Use and reporting of risk of bias tools in 825 systematic reviews of acupuncture: a cross-sectional study.
    Long Y; Wang X; Xiao W; Chen R; Guo Q; Liu J; Shao R; Huang J; Du L
    Acupunct Med; 2021 Aug; 39(4):318-326. PubMed ID: 32811166
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Completeness of reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses in vascular surgery.
    Javidan A; Alaichi J; Nassar Y; Li A; Balta KY; Naji F
    J Vasc Surg; 2023 Dec; 78(6):1550-1558.e2. PubMed ID: 37068527
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Adherence to the PRISMA statement and its association with risk of bias in systematic reviews published in rehabilitation journals: A meta-research study.
    Innocenti T; Feller D; Giagio S; Salvioli S; Minnucci S; Brindisino F; Cosentino C; Piano L; Chiarotto A; Ostelo R
    Braz J Phys Ther; 2022; 26(5):100450. PubMed ID: 36270163
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Effectiveness and safety of manual therapy for knee osteoarthritis: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
    Feng T; Wang X; Jin Z; Qin X; Sun C; Qi B; Zhang Y; Zhu L; Wei X
    Front Public Health; 2023; 11():1081238. PubMed ID: 36908468
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Methodological quality and risk of bias in orthodontic systematic reviews using AMSTAR and ROBIS.
    Hooper EJ; Pandis N; Cobourne MT; Seehra J
    Eur J Orthod; 2021 Oct; 43(5):544-550. PubMed ID: 33723612
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Characteristics and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews of prevalence studies in adult populations: a metaresearch study.
    Buitrago-Garcia D; Robles-Rodriguez WG; Eslava-Schmalbach J; Salanti G; Low N
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2024 Oct; 174():111489. PubMed ID: 39089422
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Risk of bias assessments for selective reporting were inadequate in the majority of Cochrane reviews.
    Saric F; Barcot O; Puljak L
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2019 Aug; 112():53-58. PubMed ID: 31009658
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Completeness of reporting of systematic reviews in the animal health literature: A meta-research study.
    Sargeant JM; Reynolds K; Winder CB; O'Connor AM
    Prev Vet Med; 2021 Oct; 195():105472. PubMed ID: 34438246
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Methodological tools and sensitivity analysis for assessing quality or risk of bias used in systematic reviews published in the high-impact anesthesiology journals.
    Marušić MF; Fidahić M; Cepeha CM; Farcaș LG; Tseke A; Puljak L
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2020 May; 20(1):121. PubMed ID: 32423382
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Frequency of use and adequacy of Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 in non-Cochrane systematic reviews published in 2020: Meta-research study.
    Babić A; Barcot O; Visković T; Šarić F; Kirkovski A; Barun I; Križanac Z; Ananda RA; Fuentes Barreiro YV; Malih N; Dimcea DA; Ordulj J; Weerasekara I; Spezia M; Žuljević MF; Šuto J; Tancredi L; Pijuk A; Sammali S; Iascone V; von Groote T; Poklepović Peričić T; Puljak L
    Res Synth Methods; 2024 May; 15(3):430-440. PubMed ID: 38262609
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Cochrane risk of bias tool was used inadequately in the majority of non-Cochrane systematic reviews.
    Puljak L; Ramic I; Arriola Naharro C; Brezova J; Lin YC; Surdila AA; Tomajkova E; Farias Medeiros I; Nikolovska M; Poklepovic Pericic T; Barcot O; Suarez Salvado M
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2020 Jul; 123():114-119. PubMed ID: 32247026
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.