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 *

165 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8492400)

  • 21. Effectiveness of interventions that assist caregivers to support people with dementia living in the community: a systematic review.
    Parker D; Mills S; Abbey J
    Int J Evid Based Healthc; 2008 Jun; 6(2):137-72. PubMed ID: 21631819
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Sources of evidence for systematic reviews of interventions in diabetes.
    Royle PL; Bain L; Waugh NR
    Diabet Med; 2005 Oct; 22(10):1386-93. PubMed ID: 16176201
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Reporting of conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of trials of pharmacological treatments.
    Roseman M; Milette K; Bero LA; Coyne JC; Lexchin J; Turner EH; Thombs BD
    JAMA; 2011 Mar; 305(10):1008-17. PubMed ID: 21386079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Meta-analysis: Problems with Russian Publications.
    Verbitskaya EV
    Int J Risk Saf Med; 2015; 27 Suppl 1():S89-90. PubMed ID: 26639728
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Models for estimating the number of unpublished studies.
    Gleser LJ; Olkin I
    Stat Med; 1996 Dec; 15(23):2493-507. PubMed ID: 8961459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Network meta-analyses performed by contracting companies and commissioned by industry.
    Schuit E; Ioannidis JP
    Syst Rev; 2016 Nov; 5(1):198. PubMed ID: 27884175
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. [Overviews - status quo, potentials and perspectives].
    Pieper D; Büchter RB; Antoine SL; Eikermann M
    Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes; 2013; 107(9-10):592-6. PubMed ID: 24315329
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Primary study authors of significant studies are more likely to believe that a strong association exists in a heterogeneous meta-analysis compared with methodologists.
    Panagiotou OA; Ioannidis JP
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2012 Jul; 65(7):740-7. PubMed ID: 22537426
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Reporting and methodological qualities of published surgical meta-analyses.
    Zhang H; Han J; Zhu YB; Lau WY; Schwartz ME; Xie GQ; Dai SY; Shen YN; Wu MC; Shen F; Yang T
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2016 Feb; 70():4-16. PubMed ID: 26117439
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Most published and unpublished dissertations should be excluded from meta-analyses: comment on Moyer et al.
    Coyne JC; Hagedoorn M; Thombs B
    Psychooncology; 2011 Feb; 20(2):224-5. PubMed ID: 21271624
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Are our publications failing the inspection?: a review of the publications in rectal cancer surgery between 2002 and 2012.
    Pinzon MC; Hayden DM; Ariel D; Bartosiak KA; Chiodo MV; Kosmidis K; Evans A; Saclarides TJ
    Dis Colon Rectum; 2014 Aug; 57(8):983-92. PubMed ID: 25003293
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles.
    Oxman AD; Guyatt GH
    J Clin Epidemiol; 1991; 44(11):1271-8. PubMed ID: 1834807
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Why are medical and health-related studies not being published? A systematic review of reasons given by investigators.
    Song F; Loke Y; Hooper L
    PLoS One; 2014; 9(10):e110418. PubMed ID: 25335091
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Up-to-dateness of reviews is often neglected in overviews: a systematic review.
    Pieper D; Antoine SL; Neugebauer EA; Eikermann M
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2014 Dec; 67(12):1302-8. PubMed ID: 25281222
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Unpublished data can be of value in systematic reviews of adverse effects: methodological overview.
    Golder S; Loke YK; Bland M
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2010 Oct; 63(10):1071-81. PubMed ID: 20457510
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Methods for detecting, quantifying, and adjusting for dissemination bias in meta-analysis are described.
    Mueller KF; Meerpohl JJ; Briel M; Antes G; von Elm E; Lang B; Motschall E; Schwarzer G; Bassler D
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2016 Dec; 80():25-33. PubMed ID: 27502970
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Non-corresponding authors in the era of meta-analyses.
    Manca A; Cugusi L; Dvir Z; Deriu F
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2018 Jun; 98():159-161. PubMed ID: 29408344
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Inconsistent Reporting Between Meta-analysis Protocol and Publication - A Cross-Sectional Study.
    Delgado AF; Delgado AF
    Anticancer Res; 2017 Sep; 37(9):5101-5107. PubMed ID: 28870940
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Searching for unpublished data for Cochrane reviews: cross sectional study.
    Schroll JB; Bero L; Gøtzsche PC
    BMJ; 2013 Apr; 346():f2231. PubMed ID: 23613540
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Selection and evaluation of empirical research in technology assessment.
    Chalmers TC; Hewett P; Reitman D; Sacks HS
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 1989; 5(4):521-36. PubMed ID: 2699469
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.