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 *

122 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10588294)

  • 1. Practical properties of some structural mean analyses of the effect of compliance in randomized trials.
    Fischer-Lapp K; Goetghebeur E
    Control Clin Trials; 1999 Dec; 20(6):531-46. PubMed ID: 10588294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comparing compliance patterns between randomized treatments.
    Vrijens B; Goetghebeur E
    Control Clin Trials; 1997 Jun; 18(3):187-203. PubMed ID: 9204220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A structural mean model to allow for noncompliance in a randomized trial comparing 2 active treatments.
    Fischer K; Goetghebeur E; Vrijens B; White IR
    Biostatistics; 2011 Apr; 12(2):247-57. PubMed ID: 20805286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil or valsartan in combination with amlodipine: a review of factorial-design studies.
    Ram CV
    Curr Med Res Opin; 2009 Jan; 25(1):177-85. PubMed ID: 19210150
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Estimating the causal effect of compliance on binary outcome in randomized controlled trials.
    Goetghebeur E; Molenberghs G; Katz J
    Stat Med; 1998 Feb; 17(3):341-55. PubMed ID: 9493258
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Performance of statistical methods for analysing survival data in the presence of non-random compliance.
    Odondi L; McNamee R
    Stat Med; 2010 Dec; 29(29):2994-3003. PubMed ID: 20963732
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Intention to treat, per protocol, as treated and instrumental variable estimators given non-compliance and effect heterogeneity.
    McNamee R
    Stat Med; 2009 Sep; 28(21):2639-52. PubMed ID: 19579227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Weighting in instrumental variables and G-estimation.
    Joffe MM; Brensinger C
    Stat Med; 2003 Apr; 22(8):1285-303. PubMed ID: 12687655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Bias analysis of the instrumental variable estimator as an estimator of the average causal effect.
    Chiba Y
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2010 Jan; 31(1):12-7. PubMed ID: 19879376
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Efficacy and safety of nebivolol and valsartan as fixed-dose combination in hypertension: a randomised, multicentre study.
    Giles TD; Weber MA; Basile J; Gradman AH; Bharucha DB; Chen W; Pattathil M;
    Lancet; 2014 May; 383(9932):1889-98. PubMed ID: 24881993
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The problem of measurement error in modelling the effect of compliance in a randomized trial.
    Dunn G
    Stat Med; 1999 Nov; 18(21):2863-77. PubMed ID: 10523747
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Global tests for combination drug studies in factorial trials.
    Hung HM
    Stat Med; 1996 Feb; 15(3):233-47. PubMed ID: 8643882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Linear and loglinear structural mean models to evaluate the benefits of an on-demand dosing regimen.
    Comté L; Vansteelandt S; Tousset E; Baxter G; Vrijens B
    Clin Trials; 2009 Oct; 6(5):403-15. PubMed ID: 19737849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The efficacy and tolerance of one or two daily doses of eprosartan in essential hypertension. The Eprosartan Multinational Study Group.
    Hedner T; Himmelmann A
    J Hypertens; 1999 Jan; 17(1):129-36. PubMed ID: 10100104
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Instruments and bounds for causal effects under the monotonic selection assumption.
    Taguri M; Chiba Y
    Int J Biostat; 2012 Aug; 8(1):24. PubMed ID: 22944723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Personalizing the Intensity of Blood Pressure Control: Modeling the Heterogeneity of Risks and Benefits From SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial).
    Patel KK; Arnold SV; Chan PS; Tang Y; Pokharel Y; Jones PG; Spertus JA
    Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes; 2017 Apr; 10(4):. PubMed ID: 28373269
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Simple efficient bias corrected instrumental variable estimator for randomized trials with noncompliance.
    Chan KC
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2012 Jul; 33(4):786-93. PubMed ID: 22484340
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A causal proportional hazards estimator for the effect of treatment actually received in a randomized trial with all-or-nothing compliance.
    Loeys T; Goetghebeur E
    Biometrics; 2003 Mar; 59(1):100-5. PubMed ID: 12762446
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Estimating dose-response effects in psychological treatment trials: the role of instrumental variables.
    Maracy M; Dunn G
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2011 Jun; 20(3):191-215. PubMed ID: 19036909
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Five interval estimators of the risk difference under stratified randomized clinical trials with noncompliance and repeated measurements.
    Lui KJ; Chang KC
    J Biopharm Stat; 2013; 23(4):756-73. PubMed ID: 23786643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.