Systematic reviews of evaluations of prognostic variables

By Douglas G. Altman. British medical journal, 2001

783 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3463ca0c9d051d49732860d11b7c141bf4cfb36b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Evaluation of the Quality of Prognosis Studies in Systematic Reviews (2006, positive): “Prognosis studies are investigations of future events or the evaluation of associations between risk factors and health outcomes in populations of patients (1).”
Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies: The CHARMS Checklist (2014, positive): “Different definitions and measurement methods of candidate predictors are a potential source of heterogeneity and thus risk of bias, and the use of different measurement methods may affect the strength of predictors and influence whether the predictors ultimately are included in the prediction model”
Statistical strategies for avoiding false discoveries in metabolomics and related experiments (2007, positive): “…by a variety of distinguished analysts, and a summary of cautionary papers that make useful reading include (Ransohoff and Feinstein, 1978; Altman, 2001; Ioannidis et al., 2001; Ein-Dor et al., 2006; Ransohoff, 2004, 2005; Ioannidis, 2005a, b; Ioannidis and Trikalinos , 2005; Wacholder et…”
Patient risk factors for pressure ulcer development: systematic review. (2013, positive): “…recognised that as multiple similar studies accumulate it is important to identify and evaluate all of the relevant studies to develop a more reliable overall assessment (Altman, 2001), the methodological limitations of the studies identified precluded combining study results using meta-analysis.”
Prognostic Significance of Tumor-infiltrating T-cells in Ovarian Cancer: a Meta-analysis (2011, positive): “Because there is no validated instrument to measure study quality for prognostic marker studies in an observational setting, we adapted the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the framework suggested by Altman [11,12].”
REporting recommendations for tumour MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK) (2005, positive): “The reporting guidelines proposed in this paper build upon earlier suggestions (Altman and Lyman, 1998; Gion et al, 1999; Altman, 2001a, b; Riley et al, 2003a) as well as educational publications (McShane and Simon, 2001; Simon, 2001; Biganzoli et al, 2003; Schumacher et al, 2005).”