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 *

284 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9595615)

  • 21. Long-term effects of weight-reducing diets in hypertensive patients.
    Siebenhofer A; Jeitler K; Berghold A; Waltering A; Hemkens LG; Semlitsch T; Pachler C; Strametz R; Horvath K
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2011 Sep; (9):CD008274. PubMed ID: 21901719
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Random effects survival models gave a better understanding of heterogeneity in individual patient data meta-analyses.
    Michiels S; Baujat B; Mahé C; Sargent DJ; Pignon JP
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2005 Mar; 58(3):238-45. PubMed ID: 15718112
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. A comparison of methods for meta-analysis of a small number of studies with binary outcomes.
    Mathes T; Kuss O
    Res Synth Methods; 2018 Sep; 9(3):366-381. PubMed ID: 29573180
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Controversies in meta-analysis: the case of the trials of serum cholesterol reduction.
    Thompson SG
    Stat Methods Med Res; 1993; 2(2):173-92. PubMed ID: 8261257
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Estimation of an overall standardized mean difference in random-effects meta-analysis if the distribution of random effects departs from normal.
    Rubio-Aparicio M; López-López JA; Sánchez-Meca J; Marín-Martínez F; Viechtbauer W; Van den Noortgate W
    Res Synth Methods; 2018 Sep; 9(3):489-503. PubMed ID: 29989344
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Random effects meta-analysis of event outcome in the framework of the generalized linear mixed model with applications in sparse data.
    Stijnen T; Hamza TH; Ozdemir P
    Stat Med; 2010 Dec; 29(29):3046-67. PubMed ID: 20827667
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Assessing discriminative ability of risk models in clustered data.
    van Klaveren D; Steyerberg EW; Perel P; Vergouwe Y
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2014 Jan; 14():5. PubMed ID: 24423445
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Incorporating variability in estimates of heterogeneity in the random effects model in meta-analysis.
    Biggerstaff BJ; Tweedie RL
    Stat Med; 1997 Apr; 16(7):753-68. PubMed ID: 9131763
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. High statistical heterogeneity is more frequent in meta-analysis of continuous than binary outcomes.
    Alba AC; Alexander PE; Chang J; MacIsaac J; DeFry S; Guyatt GH
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2016 Feb; 70():129-35. PubMed ID: 26386323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Inclusion of zero total event trials in meta-analyses maintains analytic consistency and incorporates all available data.
    Friedrich JO; Adhikari NK; Beyene J
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2007 Jan; 7():5. PubMed ID: 17244367
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Meta-analysis by random effect modelling in generalized linear models.
    Aitkin M
    Stat Med; 1999 Sep 15-30; 18(17-18):2343-51. PubMed ID: 10474144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Hypothesis tests for population heterogeneity in meta-analysis.
    Viechtbauer W
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2007 May; 60(Pt 1):29-60. PubMed ID: 17535578
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Effect of cocoa on blood pressure.
    Ried K; Sullivan TR; Fakler P; Frank OR; Stocks NP
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2012 Aug; (8):CD008893. PubMed ID: 22895979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Multiplicative interaction in network meta-analysis.
    Piepho HP; Madden LV; Williams ER
    Stat Med; 2015 Feb; 34(4):582-94. PubMed ID: 25410043
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Blood pressure lowering for prevention of cardiovascular disease and death: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Ettehad D; Emdin CA; Kiran A; Anderson SG; Callender T; Emberson J; Chalmers J; Rodgers A; Rahimi K
    Lancet; 2016 Mar; 387(10022):957-967. PubMed ID: 26724178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Goodness-of-fit test for meta-analysis.
    Chen Z; Zhang G; Li J
    Sci Rep; 2015 Nov; 5():16983. PubMed ID: 26592212
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Trial Sequential Analysis in systematic reviews with meta-analysis.
    Wetterslev J; Jakobsen JC; Gluud C
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Mar; 17(1):39. PubMed ID: 28264661
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Confidence intervals for random effects meta-analysis and robustness to publication bias.
    Henmi M; Copas JB
    Stat Med; 2010 Dec; 29(29):2969-83. PubMed ID: 20963748
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Critical interpretation of Cochran's Q test depends on power and prior assumptions about heterogeneity.
    Pereira TV; Patsopoulos NA; Salanti G; Ioannidis JP
    Res Synth Methods; 2010 Apr; 1(2):149-61. PubMed ID: 26061380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Practical methodology of meta-analysis of individual patient data using a survival outcome.
    Katsahian S; Latouche A; Mary JY; Chevret S; Porcher R
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2008 Mar; 29(2):220-30. PubMed ID: 17884735
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 15.