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 *

153 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 39327803)

  • 1. Towards the automatic risk of bias assessment on randomized controlled trials: A comparison of RobotReviewer and humans.
    Tian Y; Yang X; Doi SA; Furuya-Kanamori L; Lin L; Kwong JSW; Xu C
    Res Synth Methods; 2024 Nov; 15(6):1111-1119. PubMed ID: 39327803
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Agreement in Risk of Bias Assessment Between RobotReviewer and Human Reviewers: An Evaluation Study on Randomised Controlled Trials in Nursing-Related Cochrane Reviews.
    Hirt J; Meichlinger J; Schumacher P; Mueller G
    J Nurs Scholarsh; 2021 Mar; 53(2):246-254. PubMed ID: 33555110
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparing machine and human reviewers to evaluate the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials.
    Armijo-Olivo S; Craig R; Campbell S
    Res Synth Methods; 2020 May; 11(3):484-493. PubMed ID: 32065732
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Technology-assisted risk of bias assessment in systematic reviews: a prospective cross-sectional evaluation of the RobotReviewer machine learning tool.
    Gates A; Vandermeer B; Hartling L
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2018 Apr; 96():54-62. PubMed ID: 29289761
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Automating risk of bias assessment in systematic reviews: a real-time mixed methods comparison of human researchers to a machine learning system.
    Jardim PSJ; Rose CJ; Ames HM; Echavez JFM; Van de Velde S; Muller AE
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2022 Jun; 22(1):167. PubMed ID: 35676632
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Accuracy and Efficiency of Machine Learning-Assisted Risk-of-Bias Assessments in "Real-World" Systematic Reviews : A Noninferiority Randomized Controlled Trial.
    Arno A; Thomas J; Wallace B; Marshall IJ; McKenzie JE; Elliott JH
    Ann Intern Med; 2022 Jul; 175(7):1001-1009. PubMed ID: 35635850
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomised controlled trials: combined analysis of meta-epidemiological studies.
    Savović J; Jones H; Altman D; Harris R; Jűni P; Pildal J; Als-Nielsen B; Balk E; Gluud C; Gluud L; Ioannidis J; Schulz K; Beynon R; Welton N; Wood L; Moher D; Deeks J; Sterne J
    Health Technol Assess; 2012 Sep; 16(35):1-82. PubMed ID: 22989478
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Inter-review agreement of risk-of-bias judgments varied in Cochrane reviews.
    Könsgen N; Barcot O; Heß S; Puljak L; Goossen K; Rombey T; Pieper D
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2020 Apr; 120():25-32. PubMed ID: 31866473
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Disagreements in risk of bias assessment for randomized controlled trials in hypertension-related Cochrane reviews.
    Yao Y; Shen J; Luo J; Li N; Liao X; Zhang Y
    Trials; 2024 Jun; 25(1):405. PubMed ID: 38907276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Machine learning to help researchers evaluate biases in clinical trials: a prospective, randomized user study.
    Soboczenski F; Trikalinos TA; Kuiper J; Bias RG; Wallace BC; Marshall IJ
    BMC Med Inform Decis Mak; 2019 May; 19(1):96. PubMed ID: 31068178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Testing the risk of bias tool showed low reliability between individual reviewers and across consensus assessments of reviewer pairs.
    Hartling L; Hamm MP; Milne A; Vandermeer B; Santaguida PL; Ansari M; Tsertsvadze A; Hempel S; Shekelle P; Dryden DM
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2013 Sep; 66(9):973-81. PubMed ID: 22981249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Poor reliability between Cochrane reviewers and blinded external reviewers when applying the Cochrane risk of bias tool in physical therapy trials.
    Armijo-Olivo S; Ospina M; da Costa BR; Egger M; Saltaji H; Fuentes J; Ha C; Cummings GG
    PLoS One; 2014; 9(5):e96920. PubMed ID: 24824199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Agreement of Risk-of -Bias varied in systematic reviews on acupuncture and was associated with methodological quality.
    Long Y; Luo S; Chen R; Xiao W; Wang X; Hu T; Guo Q; Yang L; Cheng Y; Lin Y; Huang J; Du L
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2021 Jan; 129():12-20. PubMed ID: 32987161
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. RobotReviewer: evaluation of a system for automatically assessing bias in clinical trials.
    Marshall IJ; Kuiper J; Wallace BC
    J Am Med Inform Assoc; 2016 Jan; 23(1):193-201. PubMed ID: 26104742
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study.
    Hartling L; Ospina M; Liang Y; Dryden DM; Hooton N; Krebs Seida J; Klassen TP
    BMJ; 2009 Oct; 339():b4012. PubMed ID: 19841007
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Risk of bias assessment of randomised controlled trials referenced in the 2015 American Heart Association guidelines update for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care: a cross-sectional review.
    Cho Y; Kim C; Kang B
    BMJ Open; 2019 May; 9(5):e023725. PubMed ID: 31061016
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Agreement between the Cochrane risk of bias tool and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale: A meta-epidemiological study of randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions.
    Moseley AM; Rahman P; Wells GA; Zadro JR; Sherrington C; Toupin-April K; Brosseau L
    PLoS One; 2019; 14(9):e0222770. PubMed ID: 31536575
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Do randomized clinical trials with inadequate blinding report enhanced placebo effects for intervention groups and nocebo effects for placebo groups?
    Feys F; Bekkering GE; Singh K; Devroey D
    Syst Rev; 2014 Feb; 3():14. PubMed ID: 24555576
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.