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 *

213 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17431851)

  • 1. Analysis of a binary composite endpoint with missing data in components.
    Quan H; Zhang D; Zhang J; Devlamynck L
    Stat Med; 2007 Nov; 26(26):4703-18. PubMed ID: 17431851
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Some issues with composite endpoints in clinical trials.
    Chi GY
    Fundam Clin Pharmacol; 2005 Dec; 19(6):609-19. PubMed ID: 16313272
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Addressing multiplicity issues of a composite endpoint and its components in clinical trials.
    Huque MF; Alosh M; Bhore R
    J Biopharm Stat; 2011 Jul; 21(4):610-34. PubMed ID: 21516560
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Methodological issues in trials assessing primary prophylaxis of venous thrombo-embolism.
    Thabut G; Estellat C; Boutron I; Samama CM; Ravaud P
    Eur Heart J; 2006 Jan; 27(2):227-36. PubMed ID: 16223743
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Determining the most appropriate components for a composite clinical trial outcome.
    Bethel MA; Holman R; Haffner SM; Califf RM; Huntsman-Labed A; Hua TA; McMurray J
    Am Heart J; 2008 Oct; 156(4):633-40. PubMed ID: 18926145
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Sample sizes for clinical trials with time-to-event endpoints and competing risks.
    Schulgen G; Olschewski M; Krane V; Wanner C; Ruf G; Schumacher M
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2005 Jun; 26(3):386-96. PubMed ID: 15911472
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Statistical tests based on new composite hypotheses in clinical trials reflecting the relative clinical importance of multiple endpoints quantitatively.
    Nishikawa M; Tango T; Ohtaki M
    Biom J; 2009 Oct; 51(5):749-62. PubMed ID: 19777463
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [Controlled randomized clinical trials].
    Jaillon P
    Bull Acad Natl Med; 2007; 191(4-5):739-56; discussion 756-8. PubMed ID: 18225427
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. What we want versus what we can get: a closer look at failure time endpoints for cardiovascular studies.
    Song R; Cook TD; Kosorok MR
    J Biopharm Stat; 2008; 18(2):370-81. PubMed ID: 18327727
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Hierarchical testing of multiple endpoints in group-sequential trials.
    Glimm E; Maurer W; Bretz F
    Stat Med; 2010 Jan; 29(2):219-28. PubMed ID: 19827011
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Key issues in end point selection for heart failure trials: composite end points.
    Neaton JD; Gray G; Zuckerman BD; Konstam MA
    J Card Fail; 2005 Oct; 11(8):567-75. PubMed ID: 16230258
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A combined superiority and non-inferiority approach to multiple endpoints in clinical trials.
    Bloch DA; Lai TL; Su Z; Tubert-Bitter P
    Stat Med; 2007 Mar; 26(6):1193-207. PubMed ID: 16791905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Challenge of multiple co-primary endpoints: a new approach.
    Chuang-Stein C; Stryszak P; Dmitrienko A; Offen W
    Stat Med; 2007 Mar; 26(6):1181-92. PubMed ID: 16927251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Bayesian design and analysis of composite endpoints in clinical trials with multiple dependent binary outcomes.
    Zaslavsky BG
    Pharm Stat; 2013; 12(4):207-12. PubMed ID: 23625660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Gatekeeping testing via adaptive alpha allocation.
    Li JD; Mehrotra DV
    Biom J; 2008 Oct; 50(5):704-15. PubMed ID: 18932133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Interim futility analysis with intermediate endpoints.
    Goldman B; LeBlanc M; Crowley J
    Clin Trials; 2008; 5(1):14-22. PubMed ID: 18283075
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Evaluating co-primary endpoints collectively in clinical trials.
    Li QH
    Biom J; 2009 Feb; 51(1):137-45. PubMed ID: 19219905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Type I error and power in noninferiority/equivalence trials with correlated multiple endpoints: an example from vaccine development trials.
    Kong L; Kohberger RC; Koch GG
    J Biopharm Stat; 2004 Nov; 14(4):893-907. PubMed ID: 15587971
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Assessment of multiple ordinal endpoints.
    Häberle L; Pfahlberg A; Gefeller O
    Biom J; 2009 Feb; 51(1):217-26. PubMed ID: 19197963
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Placebo effect-adjusted assessment of quality of life in placebo-controlled clinical trials.
    Eickhoff JC
    Stat Med; 2008 Apr; 27(9):1387-402. PubMed ID: 18219702
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.