Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 61

1.

Assessment of radiologic tests: control of bias and other design considerations.

Begg CB, McNeil BJ.

Radiology. 1988 May;167(2):565-9.

PMID:
3357976
2.
3.

Assessment of diagnostic tests when disease verification is subject to selection bias.

Begg CB, Greenes RA.

Biometrics. 1983 Mar;39(1):207-15.

PMID:
6871349
4.

Bias in trials comparing paired continuous tests can cause researchers to choose the wrong screening modality.

Glueck DH, Lamb MM, O'Donnell CI, Ringham BM, Brinton JT, Muller KE, Lewin JM, Alonzo TA, Pisano ED.

BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009 Jan 20;9:4. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-9-4.

5.

Effects of bias on the results of diagnostic studies of carpal tunnel syndrome.

Boyer K, Wies J, Turkelson CM.

J Hand Surg Am. 2009 Jul-Aug;34(6):1006-13. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2009.02.018. Epub 2009 May 15. Review.

PMID:
19446966
6.

Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases.

Song F, Parekh S, Hooper L, Loke YK, Ryder J, Sutton AJ, Hing C, Kwok CS, Pang C, Harvey I.

Health Technol Assess. 2010 Feb;14(8):iii, ix-xi, 1-193. doi: 10.3310/hta14080. Review.

7.

Non-invasive fetal RHD genotyping tests: a systematic review of the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy in published studies.

Freeman K, Szczepura A, Osipenko L.

Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009 Feb;142(2):91-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2008.10.010. Epub 2008 Dec 9. Review.

PMID:
19081172
8.

Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment.

Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S, Riemsma R, Woolacoot N, Glanville J.

Health Technol Assess. 2004 Sep;8(36):iii-iv, ix-xi, 1-158. Review.

9.

Bias: considerations for research practice.

Gerhard T.

Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2008 Nov 15;65(22):2159-68. doi: 10.2146/ajhp070369. Erratum in: Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2008 Dec 1;65(23):2192.

PMID:
18997149
10.

Epidemiologic studies: pitfalls in interpretation.

Westhoff CL.

Dialogues Contracept. 1995 Winter;4(5):5-6, 8.

PMID:
12288680
11.

Be wary of methodology and biases in reading contraceptive failure rates.

[No authors listed]

Contracept Technol Update. 1986 Aug;7(8):92-4.

PMID:
12268219
12.
13.

Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies.

Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D'Amico R, Sowden AJ, Sakarovitch C, Song F, Petticrew M, Altman DG; International Stroke Trial Collaborative Group.; European Carotid Surgery Trial Collaborative Group..

Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(27):iii-x, 1-173. Review.

14.

ROC curve estimation when covariates affect the verification process.

Rodenberg C, Zhou XH.

Biometrics. 2000 Dec;56(4):1256-62.

PMID:
11129488
15.

The SENIC sampling process: design for choosing hospitals and patients and results of sample selection.

Quade D, Culver DH, Haley RW, Whaley FS, Kalsbeek WD, Hardison CD, Johnson RE, Stanley RC, Shachtman RH.

Am J Epidemiol. 1980 May;111(5):486-502.

PMID:
7377194
16.

Guidelines for the assessment of new diagnostic tests.

van der Schouw YT, Verbeek AL, Ruijs SH.

Invest Radiol. 1995 Jun;30(6):334-40.

PMID:
7490184
17.

Quality and reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies in TB, HIV and malaria: evaluation using QUADAS and STARD standards.

Fontela PS, Pant Pai N, Schiller I, Dendukuri N, Ramsay A, Pai M.

PLoS One. 2009 Nov 13;4(11):e7753. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0007753.

18.

Statistical methods for the meta-analysis of diagnostic tests must take into account the use of surrogate standards.

Kang J, Brant R, Ghali WA.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 May;66(5):566-574.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.12.008. Epub 2013 Mar 1.

PMID:
23466018
20.

The impact of bias in MoM values on patient risk and screening performance for Down syndrome.

Nix B, Wright D, Baker A.

Prenat Diagn. 2007 Sep;27(9):840-5.

PMID:
17600858

Supplemental Content

Support Center