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 *

141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9510593)

  • 1. The meta-analysis of diagnostic test studies.
    Boissel J; Cucherat M
    Eur Radiol; 1998; 8(3):484-7. PubMed ID: 9510593
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Interpreting diagnostic accuracy studies for patient care.
    Mallett S; Halligan S; Thompson M; Collins GS; Altman DG
    BMJ; 2012 Jul; 345():e3999. PubMed ID: 22750423
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Adjusting for partial verification or workup bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy studies.
    de Groot JA; Dendukuri N; Janssen KJ; Reitsma JB; Brophy J; Joseph L; Bossuyt PM; Moons KG
    Am J Epidemiol; 2012 Apr; 175(8):847-53. PubMed ID: 22422923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. Odds ratio is not independent of prevalence.
    Blackman NJ
    BMJ; 2001 Nov; 323(7322):1188. PubMed ID: 11711421
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity with sparse data: a generalized linear mixed model approach.
    Chu H; Cole SR
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2006 Dec; 59(12):1331-2; author reply 1332-3. PubMed ID: 17098577
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Nonparametric meta-analysis for diagnostic accuracy studies.
    Zapf A; Hoyer A; Kramer K; Kuss O
    Stat Med; 2015 Dec; 34(29):3831-41. PubMed ID: 26174020
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A primer on measures of treatment effectiveness and diagnostic test performance.
    Katz DA
    WMJ; 1999; 98(2):37-43. PubMed ID: 10235061
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. On the agreement between two diagnostic methods with binary outcomes.
    Attermann J
    Scand J Clin Lab Invest; 2003; 63(7-8):525-7. PubMed ID: 14743963
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Commentary on the dual-vision method for analysis of agreement data.
    Walter SD; Guyatt GH; Haynes RB; Irwig L
    Scand J Clin Lab Invest; 2003; 63(7-8):529-31. PubMed ID: 14743964
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Interpretation of tests of heterogeneity and bias in meta-analysis.
    Ioannidis JP
    J Eval Clin Pract; 2008 Oct; 14(5):951-7. PubMed ID: 19018930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Spuriously precise results from meta-analysis. Is better statistical correction or a more critical methodological assessment warranted?
    van Amelsvoort LG; Viechtbauer W; Spigt MG
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Feb; 62(2):123-5; discussion 126-7. PubMed ID: 19131014
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews.
    Reitsma JB; Glas AS; Rutjes AW; Scholten RJ; Bossuyt PM; Zwinderman AH
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2005 Oct; 58(10):982-90. PubMed ID: 16168343
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [Methodology of diagnostic validation studies. Errors in study planning and evaluation].
    Jensen K; Abel U
    Med Klin (Munich); 2000 May; 95(1 Spec No):54-60. PubMed ID: 10851849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A unification of models for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies.
    Chu H; Guo H
    Biostatistics; 2009 Jan; 10(1):201-3. PubMed ID: 19039031
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A mixed effect model for bivariate meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies using a copula representation of the random effects distribution.
    Nikoloulopoulos AK
    Stat Med; 2015 Dec; 34(29):3842-65. PubMed ID: 26234584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The conditional relative odds ratio provided less biased results for comparing diagnostic test accuracy in meta-analyses.
    Suzuki S; Moro-oka T; Choudhry NK
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2004 May; 57(5):461-9. PubMed ID: 15196616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. Two issues were simplified.
    ter Riet G; Kessels AG; Bachmann LM
    BMJ; 2001 Nov; 323(7322):1188. PubMed ID: 11794254
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Conditional relative odds ratio and comparison of accuracy of diagnostic tests based on 2 x 2 tables.
    Suzuki S
    J Epidemiol; 2006 Jul; 16(4):145-53. PubMed ID: 16837765
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A mixed model approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic studies with binary test outcome.
    Doebler P; Holling H; Böhning D
    Psychol Methods; 2012 Sep; 17(3):418-36. PubMed ID: 22582866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative.
    Jones R
    Fam Pract; 2004 Feb; 21(1):3. PubMed ID: 14760035
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.