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 *

141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20191595)

  • 1. Noninferiority trial designs for odds ratios and risk differences.
    Hilton JF
    Stat Med; 2010 Apr; 29(9):982-93. PubMed ID: 20191595
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Optimal conditional error functions for the control of conditional power.
    Brannath W; Bauer P
    Biometrics; 2004 Sep; 60(3):715-23. PubMed ID: 15339294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Optimal response-adaptive randomized designs for multi-armed survival trials.
    Sverdlov O; Tymofyeyev Y; Wong WK
    Stat Med; 2011 Oct; 30(24):2890-910. PubMed ID: 21823146
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Tests of noninferiority via rate difference for three-arm clinical trials with placebo.
    Tang ML; Tang NS
    J Biopharm Stat; 2004 May; 14(2):337-47. PubMed ID: 15206531
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Designs of superiority and noninferiority trials for binary responses are noninterchangeable.
    Hilton JF
    Biom J; 2006 Dec; 48(6):934-47. PubMed ID: 17240653
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Three-arm noninferiority trials with a prespecified margin for inference of the difference in the proportions of binary endpoints.
    Hida E; Tango T
    J Biopharm Stat; 2013; 23(4):774-89. PubMed ID: 23799810
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Choice of delta noninferiority margin and dependency of the noninferiority trials.
    Tsong Y; Zhang J; Levenson M
    J Biopharm Stat; 2007; 17(2):279-88. PubMed ID: 17365224
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Likelihood ratio and a Bayesian approach were superior to standard noninferiority analysis when the noninferiority margin varied with the control event rate.
    Kim MY; Xue X
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2004 Dec; 57(12):1253-61. PubMed ID: 15617951
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Sample size and optimal designs in stratified comparative trials to establish the equivalence of treatment effects among two ethnic groups.
    Chen YH; Wang M
    J Biopharm Stat; 2002 Nov; 12(4):553-66. PubMed ID: 12477074
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Statistical efficiency in multiple-to-one comparison trials with optimal allocation ratio.
    Zhang J; Zhang JJ
    J Biopharm Stat; 2011 Jan; 21(1):125-35. PubMed ID: 21191859
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Mixed noninferiority margin and statistical tests in active controlled trials.
    Tsou HH; Hsiao CF; Chow SC; Yue L; Xu Y; Lee S
    J Biopharm Stat; 2007; 17(2):339-57. PubMed ID: 17365228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Sample size determination for assessing equivalence based on proportion ratio under a randomized trial with non-compliance and missing outcomes.
    Lui KJ; Chang KC
    Stat Med; 2008 Jan; 27(1):47-67. PubMed ID: 17708514
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Impact of a mis-specification of the response rate under standard treatment in sequential clinical trials.
    Sébille V; Bellissant E
    Fundam Clin Pharmacol; 2005 Oct; 19(5):569-78. PubMed ID: 16176336
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Implementing a decision-theoretic design in clinical trials: why and how?
    Palmer CR; Shahumyan H
    Stat Med; 2007 Nov; 26(27):4939-57. PubMed ID: 17582801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. An urn model for odds-ratio-based response-adaptive phase III clinical trials for two or more treatments.
    Basak GK; Biswas A; Volkov S
    J Biopharm Stat; 2009 Sep; 19(5):838-56. PubMed ID: 20183447
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A likelihood approach to analyzing clinical trial data when treatments favor different outcomes.
    McClure LA; Brown MB
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2006 Aug; 27(4):340-52. PubMed ID: 16426899
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A comparison of adaptive allocation rules for group-sequential binary response clinical trials.
    Morgan CC; Stephen Coad D
    Stat Med; 2007 Apr; 26(9):1937-54. PubMed ID: 16981177
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Dropout rates in placebo-controlled and active-control clinical trials of antipsychotic drugs: a meta-analysis.
    Kemmler G; Hummer M; Widschwendter C; Fleischhacker WW
    Arch Gen Psychiatry; 2005 Dec; 62(12):1305-12. PubMed ID: 16330718
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Optimal two-stage designs allowing flexibility in number of subjects for phase II clinical trials.
    Masaki N; Koyama T; Yoshimura I; Hamada C
    J Biopharm Stat; 2009 Jul; 19(4):721-31. PubMed ID: 20183436
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Adjusting for covariates in non-inferiority studies with margins defined as risk differences.
    Mohamed K; Embleton A; Cuffe RL
    Pharm Stat; 2011; 10(5):461-6. PubMed ID: 21956950
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.