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 *

124 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18356118)

  • 1. Analysis of a crossover clinical trial by permutation methods.
    Good P; Xie F
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2008 Jul; 29(4):565-8. PubMed ID: 18356118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The fallacy of enrolling only high-risk subjects in cancer prevention trials: is there a "free lunch"?
    Baker SG; Kramer BS; Corle D
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2004 Oct; 4():24. PubMed ID: 15461821
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Cluster-crossover design: a method for limiting clusters level effect in community-intervention studies.
    Parienti JJ; Kuss O
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2007 May; 28(3):316-23. PubMed ID: 17110172
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Interim analyses in 2 x 2 crossover trials.
    Cook RJ
    Biometrics; 1995 Sep; 51(3):932-45. PubMed ID: 7548709
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Meta-analysis combining parallel and cross-over clinical trials. III: The issue of carry-over.
    Curtin F; Elbourne D; Altman DG
    Stat Med; 2002 Aug; 21(15):2161-73. PubMed ID: 12210631
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A comparison of permutation and mixed-model regression methods for the analysis of simulated data in the context of a group-randomized trial.
    Murray DM; Hannan PJ; Pals SP; McCowen RG; Baker WL; Blitstein JL
    Stat Med; 2006 Feb; 25(3):375-88. PubMed ID: 16143991
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Efficiency of the cross-over design: an empirical estimation.
    Garcia R; Benet M; Arnau C; Cobo E
    Stat Med; 2004 Dec; 23(24):3773-80. PubMed ID: 15580599
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Nonparametric confidence intervals for Tmax in sequence-stratified crossover studies.
    Willavize SA; Morgenthien EA
    Pharm Stat; 2008; 7(1):9-19. PubMed ID: 17256803
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. An alternative analysis for crossover studies that accounts for between-group disparities in drug response.
    Cleophas TJ
    Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther; 1997 Nov; 35(11):504-8. PubMed ID: 9401831
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Applications of extensions of bivariate rank sum statistics to the crossover design to compare two treatments through four sequence groups.
    Kawaguchi A; Koch GG; Ramaswamy R
    Biometrics; 2009 Sep; 65(3):979-88. PubMed ID: 19173698
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Use of two-stage test statistic in the two-period crossover trials.
    Wang SJ; Hung HM
    Biometrics; 1997 Sep; 53(3):1081-91. PubMed ID: 9333341
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Analyzing multivariate data in crossover designs using permutation tests.
    Johnson WD; Mercante DE
    J Biopharm Stat; 1996 Jul; 6(3):327-42. PubMed ID: 8854236
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Assessing the validity of clinical trials.
    Akobeng AK
    J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr; 2008 Sep; 47(3):277-82. PubMed ID: 18728521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A double-blind, randomized, crossover comparison between single-dose and double-dose immediate-release oral morphine at bedtime in cancer patients.
    Dale O; Piribauer M; Kaasa S; Moksnes K; Knobel H; Klepstad P
    J Pain Symptom Manage; 2009 Jan; 37(1):68-76. PubMed ID: 18504090
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Assessment of risk of bias in randomized clinical trials in surgery.
    Gurusamy KS; Gluud C; Nikolova D; Davidson BR
    Br J Surg; 2009 Apr; 96(4):342-9. PubMed ID: 19283747
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Robust tests for treatment effects based on censored recurrent event data observed over multiple periods.
    Cook RJ; Wei W; Yi GY
    Biometrics; 2005 Sep; 61(3):692-701. PubMed ID: 16135020
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. New algorithm for treatment allocation reduced selection bias and loss of power in small trials.
    Hofmeijer J; Anema PC; van der Tweel I
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Feb; 61(2):119-24. PubMed ID: 18177784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. An alternative analysis for crossover studies that accounts for between-group disparities in drug response.
    Cleophas TJ
    Eur J Clin Chem Clin Biochem; 1997 Oct; 35(10):775-9. PubMed ID: 9368796
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Design and analysis of experiments.
    Shuster JJ
    Methods Mol Biol; 2007; 404():235-59. PubMed ID: 18450053
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Crossover trials should not be used to test one treatment against another treatment with a totally different chemical class/mode of action.
    Cleophas TJ
    J Clin Pharmacol; 2000 Dec; 40(12 Pt 2):1503-8. PubMed ID: 11185673
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.