Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 102

1.

Overall similarity and consistency assessment scores are not sufficiently accurate for predicting discrepancy between direct and indirect comparison estimates.

Xiong T, Parekh-Bhurke S, Loke YK, Abdelhamid A, Sutton AJ, Eastwood AJ, Holland R, Chen YF, Walsh T, Glenny AM, Song F.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Feb;66(2):184-91. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.06.022. Epub 2012 Nov 24. Review.

2.

Inconsistency between direct and indirect comparisons of competing interventions: meta-epidemiological study.

Song F, Xiong T, Parekh-Bhurke S, Loke YK, Sutton AJ, Eastwood AJ, Holland R, Chen YF, Glenny AM, Deeks JJ, Altman DG.

BMJ. 2011 Aug 16;343:d4909. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d4909.

3.

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.

4.

Indirect comparisons: a review of reporting and methodological quality.

Donegan S, Williamson P, Gamble C, Tudur-Smith C.

PLoS One. 2010 Nov 10;5(11):e11054. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011054. Review.

5.

Indirect comparisons of competing interventions.

Glenny AM, Altman DG, Song F, Sakarovitch C, Deeks JJ, D'Amico R, Bradburn M, Eastwood AJ; International Stroke Trial Collaborative Group..

Health Technol Assess. 2005 Jul;9(26):1-134, iii-iv.

7.

GRADE guidelines: 12. Preparing summary of findings tables-binary outcomes.

Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Santesso N, Helfand M, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, Norris S, Meerpohl J, Djulbegovic B, Alonso-Coello P, Post PN, Busse JW, Glasziou P, Christensen R, Schünemann HJ.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Feb;66(2):158-72. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.01.012. Epub 2012 May 18. Review.

PMID:
22609141
8.

[GRADE guidelines: 12. Developing Summary of Findings tables - dichotomous outcomes].

Langer G, Meerpohl JJ, Perleth M, Gartlehner G, Schünemann H.

Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2013;107(9-10):646-64. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2013.10.034. Epub 2013 Nov 9. German.

PMID:
24315336
9.

Directed acyclic graphs can help understand bias in indirect and mixed treatment comparisons.

Jansen JP, Schmid CH, Salanti G.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2012 Jul;65(7):798-807. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.01.002. Epub 2012 Apr 20.

PMID:
22521579
10.

Indirect comparisons of therapeutic interventions.

Schöttker B, Lühmann D, Boulkhemair D, Raspe H.

GMS Health Technol Assess. 2009 Jul 21;5:Doc09. doi: 10.3205/hta000071.

11.

[GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence (confidence in the estimates of effect)].

Meerpohl JJ, Langer G, Perleth M, Gartlehner G, Kaminski-Hartenthaler A, Schünemann H.

Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2012;106(6):449-56. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2012.06.013. Epub 2012 Jul 6. German.

PMID:
22857733
12.

Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews.

Song F, Loke YK, Walsh T, Glenny AM, Eastwood AJ, Altman DG.

BMJ. 2009 Apr 3;338:b1147. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b1147. Review.

13.

[GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence - inconsistency].

Perleth M, Langer G, Meerpohl JJ, Gartlehner G, Kaminski-Hartenthaler A, Schünemann HJ.

Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2012;106(10):733-44. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2012.10.018. Epub 2012 Nov 16. Review. German.

PMID:
23217727
14.

GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence--indirectness.

Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Woodcock J, Brozek J, Helfand M, Alonso-Coello P, Falck-Ytter Y, Jaeschke R, Vist G, Akl EA, Post PN, Norris S, Meerpohl J, Shukla VK, Nasser M, Schünemann HJ; GRADE Working Group..

J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Dec;64(12):1303-10. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.04.014. Epub 2011 Jul 30.

PMID:
21802903
15.

Methods to decrease blood loss during liver resection: a network meta-analysis.

Moggia E, Rouse B, Simillis C, Li T, Vaughan J, Davidson BR, Gurusamy KS.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Oct 31;10:CD010683. Review.

PMID:
27797116
16.

Assessing methods to specify the target difference for a randomised controlled trial: DELTA (Difference ELicitation in TriAls) review.

Cook JA, Hislop J, Adewuyi TE, Harrild K, Altman DG, Ramsay CR, Fraser C, Buckley B, Fayers P, Harvey I, Briggs AH, Norrie JD, Fergusson D, Ford I, Vale LD.

Health Technol Assess. 2014 May;18(28):v-vi, 1-175. doi: 10.3310/hta18280. Review.

17.

GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables.

Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, Norris S, Falck-Ytter Y, Glasziou P, DeBeer H, Jaeschke R, Rind D, Meerpohl J, Dahm P, Schünemann HJ.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Apr;64(4):383-94. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026. Epub 2010 Dec 31.

PMID:
21195583
18.

[GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence - limitations of clinical trials (risk of bias)].

Meerpohl JJ, Langer G, Perleth M, Gartlehner G, Kaminski-Hartenthaler A, Schünemann H.

Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2012;106(6):457-69. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2012.06.014. Epub 2012 Jul 6. German.

PMID:
22857734
19.

[GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence - indirectness].

Rasch A, Perleth M, Langer G, Meerpohl JJ, Gartlehner G, Kaminski-Hartenthaler A, Schünemann HJ.

Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2012;106(10):745-53. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2012.10.019. Epub 2012 Nov 16. German.

PMID:
23217728
20.

[Volume and health outcomes: evidence from systematic reviews and from evaluation of Italian hospital data].

Amato L, Colais P, Davoli M, Ferroni E, Fusco D, Minozzi S, Moirano F, Sciattella P, Vecchi S, Ventura M, Perucci CA.

Epidemiol Prev. 2013 Mar-Jun;37(2-3 Suppl 2):1-100. Review. Italian.

Supplemental Content

Support Center