147 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19432721)
1. Reporting of minimum clinically important differences in surgical trials.
Kashani I; Hall JL; Hall JC
ANZ J Surg; 2009 Apr; 79(4):301-4. PubMed ID: 19432721
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Sample size calculations in surgery: are they done correctly?
Maggard MA; O'Connell JB; Liu JH; Etzioni DA; Ko CY
Surgery; 2003 Aug; 134(2):275-9. PubMed ID: 12947329
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The role of the minimum clinically important difference and its impact on designing a trial.
Chuang-Stein C; Kirby S; Hirsch I; Atkinson G
Pharm Stat; 2011; 10(3):250-6. PubMed ID: 20936625
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Sample size calculation in survival trials accounting for time-varying relationship between noncompliance and risk of outcome event.
Li B; Grambsch P
Clin Trials; 2006; 3(4):349-59. PubMed ID: 17060209
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Statistical power of negative randomized controlled trials presented at American Society for Clinical Oncology annual meetings.
Bedard PL; Krzyzanowska MK; Pintilie M; Tannock IF
J Clin Oncol; 2007 Aug; 25(23):3482-7. PubMed ID: 17687153
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Improvement in the quality of randomized controlled trials among general anesthesiology journals 2000 to 2006: a 6-year follow-up.
Greenfield ML; Mhyre JM; Mashour GA; Blum JM; Yen EC; Rosenberg AL
Anesth Analg; 2009 Jun; 108(6):1916-21. PubMed ID: 19448222
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Assessing quality of reports on randomized clinical trials in nursing journals.
Parent N; Hanley JA
Can J Cardiovasc Nurs; 2009; 19(2):25-39. PubMed ID: 19517902
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Inadequate planning and reporting of adjudication committees in clinical trials: recommendation proposal.
Dechartres A; Boutron I; Roy C; Ravaud P
J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Jul; 62(7):695-702. PubMed ID: 19135860
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Practical guides to understanding sample size and minimal clinically important difference (MCID).
Neely JG; Karni RJ; Engel SH; Fraley PL; Nussenbaum B; Paniello RC
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2007 Jan; 136(1):14-8. PubMed ID: 17210326
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Consultants' forum: should post hoc sample size calculations be done?
Walters SJ
Pharm Stat; 2009; 8(2):163-9. PubMed ID: 18416448
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Caution regarding the choice of standard deviations to guide sample size calculations in clinical trials.
Chen H; Zhang N; Lu X; Chen S
Clin Trials; 2013 Aug; 10(4):522-9. PubMed ID: 23794405
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The variability in minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptomatic state values did not have an impact on treatment effect estimates.
Tubach F; Giraudeau B; Ravaud P
J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Jul; 62(7):725-8. PubMed ID: 19128938
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The design and interpretation of pilot trials in clinical research in critical care.
Arnold DM; Burns KE; Adhikari NK; Kho ME; Meade MO; Cook DJ;
Crit Care Med; 2009 Jan; 37(1 Suppl):S69-74. PubMed ID: 19104228
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Emergence of 'retropro' studies in the surgical literature.
Hall JC; Hall JL
ANZ J Surg; 2008 May; 78(5):411-3. PubMed ID: 18380746
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A simulation study of sample size for multilevel logistic regression models.
Moineddin R; Matheson FI; Glazier RH
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2007 Jul; 7():34. PubMed ID: 17634107
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Determining a minimum clinically important difference between treatments for a patient-reported outcome.
Kirby S; Chuang-Stein C; Morris M
J Biopharm Stat; 2010 Sep; 20(5):1043-54. PubMed ID: 20721790
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Sample size calculations for 3-level cluster randomized trials.
Teerenstra S; Moerbeek M; van Achterberg T; Pelzer BJ; Borm GF
Clin Trials; 2008; 5(5):486-95. PubMed ID: 18827041
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Back to basics: explaining sample size in outcome trials, are statisticians doing a thorough job?
Carroll KJ
Pharm Stat; 2009; 8(4):333-45. PubMed ID: 19180520
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Defining survival as an outcome measure in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.
Gordon PH; Corcia P; Lacomblez L; Pochigaeva K; Abitbol JL; Cudkowicz M; Leigh PN; Meininger V
Arch Neurol; 2009 Jun; 66(6):758-61. PubMed ID: 19506136
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Safety reporting in randomized clinical trials - a need for improvement.
Yazici Y
Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis; 2009; 67(2):209-10. PubMed ID: 19583556
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
