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)

  • 21. Individual patient meta-analysis of self-monitoring of an oral anticoagulation protocol.
    Perera R; Heneghan C; Fitzmaurice D;
    J Heart Valve Dis; 2008 Mar; 17(2):233-8. PubMed ID: 18512497
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Assessing the impact of endpoint shopping on power in confirmatory clinical trials.
    Wiens BL
    J Biopharm Stat; 2003 May; 13(2):229-40. PubMed ID: 12729391
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Does the decision in a validation process of a surrogate endpoint change with level of significance of treatment effect? A proposal on validation of surrogate endpoints.
    Sertdemir Y; Burgut R
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2009 Jan; 30(1):8-12. PubMed ID: 18809512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Missing data handling methods in medical device clinical trials.
    Yan X; Lee S; Li N
    J Biopharm Stat; 2009 Nov; 19(6):1085-98. PubMed ID: 20183466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. A consistency-adjusted strategy for accommodating an underpowered primary endpoint.
    Huque MF; Alosh M
    J Biopharm Stat; 2012; 22(1):160-79. PubMed ID: 22204533
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Missing data in confirmatory clinical trials.
    Flyer P; Hirman J
    J Biopharm Stat; 2009 Nov; 19(6):969-79. PubMed ID: 20183459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Predicting event times in clinical trials when randomization is masked and blocked.
    Donovan JM; Elliott MR; Heitjan DF
    Clin Trials; 2007; 4(5):481-90. PubMed ID: 17942464
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. An efficient method for accommodating potentially underpowered primary endpoints.
    Li J; Mehrotra DV
    Stat Med; 2008 Nov; 27(26):5377-91. PubMed ID: 18759248
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. How to deal with multiple endpoints in clinical trials.
    Neuhäuser M
    Fundam Clin Pharmacol; 2006 Dec; 20(6):515-23. PubMed ID: 17109645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. A decision rule for sequential monitoring of clinical trials with a primary and supportive outcome.
    Zhao Y; Grambsch PM; Neaton JD
    Clin Trials; 2007; 4(2):140-53. PubMed ID: 17456513
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. Statistical considerations when using a composite endpoint for comparing treatment groups.
    Gómez G; Lagakos SW
    Stat Med; 2013 Feb; 32(5):719-38. PubMed ID: 22855368
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Imputation of a true endpoint from a surrogate: application to a cluster randomized controlled trial with partial information on the true endpoint.
    Nixon RM; Duffy SW; Fender GR
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2003 Sep; 3():17. PubMed ID: 14507420
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Properties of multiple intersection-union tests for multiple endpoints in combination therapy trials.
    Westfall PH; Ho SY; Prillaman BA
    J Biopharm Stat; 2001; 11(3):125-38. PubMed ID: 11725927
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Re-formulating non-inferiority trials as superiority trials: The case of binary outcomes.
    Durkalski VL; Berger VW
    Biom J; 2009 Feb; 51(1):185-92. PubMed ID: 19197960
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Partition testing in dose-response studies with multiple endpoints.
    Liu Y; Hsu J; Ruberg S
    Pharm Stat; 2007; 6(3):181-92. PubMed ID: 17654696
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Bayesian interim analysis in clinical trials.
    Zhang X; Cutter G
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2008 Sep; 29(5):751-5. PubMed ID: 18589003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Adaptive design method based on sum of p-values.
    Chang M
    Stat Med; 2007 Jun; 26(14):2772-84. PubMed ID: 17133651
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Prentice's approach and the meta-analytic paradigm: a reflection on the role of statistics in the evaluation of surrogate endpoints.
    Alonso A; Molenberghs G; Burzykowski T; Renard D; Geys H; Shkedy Z; Tibaldi F; Abrahantes JC; Buyse M
    Biometrics; 2004 Sep; 60(3):724-8. PubMed ID: 15339295
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Estimation of multiple response rates in phase II clinical trials with missing observations.
    Chang M
    J Biopharm Stat; 2009 Sep; 19(5):791-802. PubMed ID: 20183444
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.