74 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17634972)
1. Sample size adaptation designs and efficiency comparison with group sequential designs.
Cui L
Stat Med; 2024 May; 43(11):2203-2215. PubMed ID: 38545849
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Simulation methods to estimate design power: an overview for applied research.
Arnold BF; Hogan DR; Colford JM; Hubbard AE
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2011 Jun; 11():94. PubMed ID: 21689447
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Sample size determination.
Dell RB; Holleran S; Ramakrishnan R
ILAR J; 2002; 43(4):207-13. PubMed ID: 12391396
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The effect of Fisher information matrix approximation methods in population optimal design calculations.
Strömberg EA; Nyberg J; Hooker AC
J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn; 2016 Dec; 43(6):609-619. PubMed ID: 27804003
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A brief overview of pilot studies and their sample size justification.
Kunselman AR
Fertil Steril; 2024 Jun; 121(6):899-901. PubMed ID: 38331310
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Sample size requirements for case-control study designs.
Edwardes MD
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2001; 1():11. PubMed ID: 11747473
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Importance of accounting for repeated measure designs when evaluating treatment effects at multiple postoperative days.
Huber M; Wuethrich PY
Eur J Anaesthesiol; 2024 Jul; 41(7):539-541. PubMed ID: 38845577
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Extension of a conditional performance score for sample size recalculation rules to the setting of binary endpoints.
Bokelmann B; Rauch G; Meis J; Kieser M; Herrmann C
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2024 Jan; 24(1):15. PubMed ID: 38243169
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Choice of futility boundaries for group sequential designs with two endpoints.
Schüler S; Kieser M; Rauch G
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Aug; 17(1):119. PubMed ID: 28789615
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Sample size estimation: an overview with applications to orthodontic clinical trial designs.
Pandis N; Polychronopoulou A; Eliades T
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2011 Oct; 140(4):e141-6. PubMed ID: 21967951
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The advantages and disadvantages of adaptive designs for clinical trials.
Bauer P; Brannath W
Drug Discov Today; 2004 Apr; 9(8):351-7. PubMed ID: 15081962
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Evaluating the adaptive performance of flexible sample size designs with treatment difference in an interval.
Liu GF; Zhu GR; Cui L
Stat Med; 2008 Feb; 27(4):584-96. PubMed ID: 17634972
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. On sample size determination in multi-armed confirmatory adaptive designs.
Wassmer G
J Biopharm Stat; 2011 Jul; 21(4):802-17. PubMed ID: 21516570
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Flexible two-stage design with sample size reassessment for survival trials.
Desseaux K; Porcher R
Stat Med; 2007 Nov; 26(27):5002-13. PubMed ID: 17577242
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Sample size for two-stage studies with maintenance therapy.
Feng W; Wahed AS
Stat Med; 2009 Jul; 28(15):2028-41. PubMed ID: 19382105
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
