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 *

295 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9439507)

  • 1. Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enough.
    Lau J; Ioannidis JP; Schmid CH
    Lancet; 1998 Jan; 351(9096):123-7. PubMed ID: 9439507
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: part 6. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies.
    Manchikanti L; Datta S; Smith HS; Hirsch JA
    Pain Physician; 2009; 12(5):819-50. PubMed ID: 19787009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Detecting and adjusting for small-study effects in meta-analysis.
    Rücker G; Carpenter JR; Schwarzer G
    Biom J; 2011 Mar; 53(2):351-68. PubMed ID: 21374698
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Problems caused by heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a case study of acupuncture trials.
    Prady SL; Burch J; Crouch S; MacPherson H
    Acupunct Med; 2014 Feb; 32(1):56-61. PubMed ID: 24140758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Investigating patient exclusion bias in meta-analysis.
    Tierney JF; Stewart LA
    Int J Epidemiol; 2005 Feb; 34(1):79-87. PubMed ID: 15561753
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Primer: strengths and weaknesses of meta-analysis.
    Finckh A; Tramèr MR
    Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol; 2008 Mar; 4(3):146-52. PubMed ID: 18227829
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Should meta-analyses of interventions include observational studies in addition to randomized controlled trials? A critical examination of underlying principles.
    Shrier I; Boivin JF; Steele RJ; Platt RW; Furlan A; Kakuma R; Brophy J; Rossignol M
    Am J Epidemiol; 2007 Nov; 166(10):1203-9. PubMed ID: 17712019
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Deconstructing evidence in orthodontics: making sense of systematic reviews, randomized clinical trials, and meta-analyses.
    Rinchuse DJ; Rinchuse DJ; Kandasamy S; Ackerman MB
    World J Orthod; 2008; 9(2):167-76. PubMed ID: 18575311
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Treating individuals 4: can meta-analysis help target interventions at individuals most likely to benefit?
    Thompson SG; Higgins JP
    Lancet; 2005 Jan 22-28; 365(9456):341-6. PubMed ID: 15664231
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Use of re-randomized data in meta-analysis.
    Hozo I; Djulbegovic B; Clark O; Lyman GH
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2005 May; 5():17. PubMed ID: 15882470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Overcoming the limitations of current meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
    Pogue J; Yusuf S
    Lancet; 1998 Jan; 351(9095):47-52. PubMed ID: 9433436
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Empirical assessment suggests that existing evidence could be used more fully in designing randomized controlled trials.
    Goudie AC; Sutton AJ; Jones DR; Donald A
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2010 Sep; 63(9):983-91. PubMed ID: 20573483
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Reconciling disparate data to determine the right answer: A grounded theory of meta analysts' reasoning in meta-analysis.
    Chan L; Macdonald ME; Carnevale FA; Steele RJ; Shrier I
    Res Synth Methods; 2018 Mar; 9(1):25-40. PubMed ID: 28741808
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Deriving treatment recommendations from evidence within randomized trials. The role and limitation of meta-analysis.
    Freemantle N; Mason J; Eccles M
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 1999; 15(2):304-15. PubMed ID: 10507190
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Assessing the impact of attrition in randomized controlled trials.
    Hewitt CE; Kumaravel B; Dumville JC; Torgerson DJ;
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2010 Nov; 63(11):1264-70. PubMed ID: 20573482
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Factorial design provides evidence to guide practice of anaesthesia.
    Korttila K; Apfel CC
    Acta Anaesthesiol Scand; 2005 Aug; 49(7):927-9. PubMed ID: 16045652
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Single-center trials show larger treatment effects than multicenter trials: evidence from a meta-epidemiologic study.
    Dechartres A; Boutron I; Trinquart L; Charles P; Ravaud P
    Ann Intern Med; 2011 Jul; 155(1):39-51. PubMed ID: 21727292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?
    Moher D; Pham B; Jones A; Cook DJ; Jadad AR; Moher M; Tugwell P; Klassen TP
    Lancet; 1998 Aug; 352(9128):609-13. PubMed ID: 9746022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [Randomized trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses: basic criteria in the world of scientific evidence].
    Purgato M; Cipriani A; Barbui C
    Riv Psichiatr; 2012; 47(1):21-9. PubMed ID: 22358214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Assessing the quality of reports of randomised trials: implications for the conduct of meta-analyses.
    Moher D; Cook DJ; Jadad AR; Tugwell P; Moher M; Jones A; Pham B; Klassen TP
    Health Technol Assess; 1999; 3(12):i-iv, 1-98. PubMed ID: 10374081
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 15.