114 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1420845)
1. Estimating the probability of toxicity at the recommended dose following a phase I clinical trial in cancer.
O'Quigley J
Biometrics; 1992 Sep; 48(3):853-62. PubMed ID: 1420845
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Interval estimates of the probability of toxicity at the maximum tolerated dose for small samples.
Natarajan L; O'Quigley J
Stat Med; 2003 Jun; 22(11):1829-36. PubMed ID: 12754718
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Continual reassessment method: a likelihood approach.
O'Quigley J; Shen LZ
Biometrics; 1996 Jun; 52(2):673-84. PubMed ID: 8672707
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A comparison of model choices for the Continual Reassessment Method in phase I cancer trials.
Paoletti X; Kramar A
Stat Med; 2009 Oct; 28(24):3012-28. PubMed ID: 19672839
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Small-sample confidence sets for the MTD in a phase I clinical trial.
Storer BE
Biometrics; 1993 Dec; 49(4):1117-25. PubMed ID: 8117905
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Sensitivity of dose-finding studies to observation errors.
Zohar S; O'Quigley J
Contemp Clin Trials; 2009 Nov; 30(6):523-30. PubMed ID: 19580886
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Heterogeneity in phase I clinical trials: prior elicitation and computation using the continual reassessment method.
Legedza AT; Ibrahim JG
Stat Med; 2001 Mar; 20(6):867-82. PubMed ID: 11252009
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Dose-escalation designs in oncology: ADEPT and the CRM.
Shu J; O'Quigley J
Stat Med; 2008 Nov; 27(26):5345-53; discussion 5354-5. PubMed ID: 18752259
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Two-sample continual reassessment method.
O'Quigley J; Shen LZ; Gamst A
J Biopharm Stat; 1999 Mar; 9(1):17-44. PubMed ID: 10091908
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Flexible Bayesian methods for cancer phase I clinical trials. Dose escalation with overdose control.
Tighiouart M; Rogatko A; Babb JS
Stat Med; 2005 Jul; 24(14):2183-96. PubMed ID: 15909291
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Retrospective robustness of the continual reassessment method.
O'Quigley J; Zohar S
J Biopharm Stat; 2010 Sep; 20(5):1013-25. PubMed ID: 20721788
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Optimal designs for estimating the most successful dose.
Zohar S; O'Quigley J
Stat Med; 2006 Dec; 25(24):4311-20. PubMed ID: 16969893
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Dose-finding in phase I clinical trials based on toxicity probability intervals.
Ji Y; Li Y; Nebiyou Bekele B
Clin Trials; 2007; 4(3):235-44. PubMed ID: 17715248
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Toxicity equivalence range design (TEQR): a practical Phase I design.
Blanchard MS; Longmate JA
Contemp Clin Trials; 2011 Jan; 32(1):114-21. PubMed ID: 20923709
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Three-dose-cohort designs in cancer phase I trials.
Huang B; Chappell R
Stat Med; 2008 May; 27(12):2070-93. PubMed ID: 17764082
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A two-stage algorithm for designing phase I cancer clinical trials for two new molecular entities.
Su Z
Contemp Clin Trials; 2010 Jan; 31(1):105-7. PubMed ID: 19879974
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Confidence interval construction for proportion difference in small-sample paired studies.
Tang ML; Tang NS; Chan IS
Stat Med; 2005 Dec; 24(23):3565-79. PubMed ID: 16261646
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Estimation of a parameter and its exact confidence interval following sequential sample size reestimation trials.
Cheng Y; Shen Y
Biometrics; 2004 Dec; 60(4):910-8. PubMed ID: 15606411
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Practical modifications of the continual reassessment method for phase I cancer clinical trials.
Faries D
J Biopharm Stat; 1994 Jul; 4(2):147-64. PubMed ID: 7951271
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Continuous toxicity monitoring in phase II trials in oncology.
Ivanova A; Qaqish BF; Schell MJ
Biometrics; 2005 Jun; 61(2):540-5. PubMed ID: 16011702
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
