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 *

150 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15532089)

  • 1. A comparison of intent-to-treat and per-protocol results in antibiotic non-inferiority trials.
    Brittain E; Lin D
    Stat Med; 2005 Jan; 24(1):1-10. PubMed ID: 15532089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A comparison of the results of intent-to-treat, per-protocol, and g-estimation in the presence of non-random treatment changes in a time-to-event non-inferiority trial.
    Matsuyama Y
    Stat Med; 2010 Sep; 29(20):2107-16. PubMed ID: 20552682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Choosing the analysis population in non-inferiority studies: per protocol or intent-to-treat.
    Matilde Sanchez M; Chen X
    Stat Med; 2006 Apr; 25(7):1169-81. PubMed ID: 16397861
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Estimating effects from randomized trials with discontinuations: the need for intent-to-treat design and G-estimation.
    Greenland S; Lanes S; Jara M
    Clin Trials; 2008; 5(1):5-13. PubMed ID: 18283074
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Correcting for non-compliance in randomized non-inferiority trials with active and placebo control using structural models.
    Wu Y; Zhao L; Hou Y; Li K; Zhou X
    Stat Med; 2015 Mar; 34(6):950-65. PubMed ID: 25534903
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The effects of non-compliance on intent-to-treat analysis of equivalence trials.
    Sheng D; Kim MY
    Stat Med; 2006 Apr; 25(7):1183-99. PubMed ID: 16220491
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Intention-to-treat analysis may be more conservative than per protocol analysis in antibiotic non-inferiority trials: a systematic review.
    Bai AD; Komorowski AS; Lo CKL; Tandon P; Li XX; Mokashi V; Cvetkovic A; Findlater A; Liang L; Tomlinson G; Loeb M; Mertz D;
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 Apr; 21(1):75. PubMed ID: 33874894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Violation of the intent-to-treat principle and rate of missing data in superiority trials assessing structural outcomes in rheumatic diseases.
    Baron G; Boutron I; Giraudeau B; Ravaud P
    Arthritis Rheum; 2005 Jun; 52(6):1858-65. PubMed ID: 15934058
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Dropout rates for intent-to-treat and per protocol analyses.
    Stewart WC; Jackson AL; Jenkins JN
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2004 Apr; 137(4):639-45. PubMed ID: 15059702
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Discordant conclusions from HIV clinical trials--an evaluation of efficacy endpoints.
    Hill A; Demasi R
    Antivir Ther; 2005; 10(3):367-74. PubMed ID: 15918328
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. [NNT--numbers needed to treat].
    Netzer D; Berkovitzs E; Reis S; Weinberger T
    Harefuah; 2003 Jul; 142(7):541-3, 565. PubMed ID: 12908391
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A mixed approach for proving non-inferiority in clinical trials with binary endpoints.
    Rousson V; Seifert B
    Biom J; 2008 Apr; 50(2):190-204. PubMed ID: 18311852
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A framework for two-stage adaptive procedures to simultaneously test non-inferiority and superiority.
    Koyama T; Sampson AR; Gleser LJ
    Stat Med; 2005 Aug; 24(16):2439-56. PubMed ID: 15977285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. [Statistical notes. From superiority to non-inferiority clinical trials: a leap in the dark?].
    Marubini E; Rebora P; Reina G
    Ital Heart J Suppl; 2004 Sep; 5(9):712-9. PubMed ID: 15568609
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparison of methods of handling missing data in individual patient data meta-analyses: an empirical example on antibiotics in children with acute otitis media.
    Koopman L; van der Heijden GJ; Grobbee DE; Rovers MM
    Am J Epidemiol; 2008 Mar; 167(5):540-5. PubMed ID: 18184640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Methodology of superiority vs. equivalence trials and non-inferiority trials.
    Christensen E
    J Hepatol; 2007 May; 46(5):947-54. PubMed ID: 17412447
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A note on the conservativeness of the confidence interval approach for the selection of non-inferiority margin in the two-arm active-control trial.
    Sankoh AJ
    Stat Med; 2008 Aug; 27(19):3732-42. PubMed ID: 18407575
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) guideline on the choice of the non-inferiority margin.
    ; ;
    Stat Med; 2006 May; 25(10):1628-38. PubMed ID: 16639773
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Pancreatic duct stents in the prophylaxis of pancreatic damage after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a systematic analysis of benefits and associated risks.
    Andriulli A; Forlano R; Napolitano G; Conoscitore P; Caruso N; Pilotto A; Di Sebastiano PL; Leandro G
    Digestion; 2007; 75(2-3):156-63. PubMed ID: 17684365
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Sample size estimation for non-inferiority trials of time-to-event data.
    Crisp A; Curtis P
    Pharm Stat; 2008; 7(4):236-44. PubMed ID: 17583558
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.