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 *

133 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20529275)

  • 1. Testing for heterogeneity among the components of a binary composite outcome in a clinical trial.
    Pogue J; Thabane L; Devereaux PJ; Yusuf S
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2010 Jun; 10():49. PubMed ID: 20529275
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. On the analysis of composite measures of quality in medical research.
    Moineddin R; Meaney C; Grunfeld E
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2017 Apr; 26(2):633-660. PubMed ID: 25296866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A comparison of the statistical power of different methods for the analysis of cluster randomization trials with binary outcomes.
    Austin PC
    Stat Med; 2007 Aug; 26(19):3550-65. PubMed ID: 17238238
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of Bayesian and classical methods in the analysis of cluster randomized controlled trials with a binary outcome: the Community Hypertension Assessment Trial (CHAT).
    Ma J; Thabane L; Kaczorowski J; Chambers L; Dolovich L; Karwalajtys T; Levitt C
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2009 Jun; 9():37. PubMed ID: 19531226
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A readily available improvement over method of moments for intra-cluster correlation estimation in the context of cluster randomized trials and fitting a GEE-type marginal model for binary outcomes.
    Westgate PM
    Clin Trials; 2019 Feb; 16(1):41-51. PubMed ID: 30295512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Performance of models for estimating absolute risk difference in multicenter trials with binary outcome.
    Pedroza C; Truong VT
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2016 Aug; 16(1):113. PubMed ID: 27576307
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Design and analysis of trials with a partially nested design and a binary outcome measure.
    Roberts C; Batistatou E; Roberts SA
    Stat Med; 2016 May; 35(10):1616-36. PubMed ID: 26670388
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Designing and analyzing clinical trials with composite outcomes: consideration of possible treatment differences between the individual outcomes.
    Pogue J; Devereaux PJ; Thabane L; Yusuf S
    PLoS One; 2012; 7(4):e34785. PubMed ID: 22529934
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Composite outcomes: weighting component events according to severity assisted interpretation but reduced statistical power.
    Sampson UK; Metcalfe C; Pfeffer MA; Solomon SD; Zou KH
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2010 Oct; 63(10):1156-8. PubMed ID: 20558037
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Methods for interaction analyses using family-based case-control data: conditional logistic regression versus generalized estimating equations.
    Hancock DB; Martin ER; Li YJ; Scott WK
    Genet Epidemiol; 2007 Dec; 31(8):883-93. PubMed ID: 17565751
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Testing for qualitative heterogeneity: An application to composite endpoints in survival analysis.
    Oulhaj A; El Ghouch A; Holman RR
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2019 Jan; 28(1):151-169. PubMed ID: 28670972
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Multivariable risk prediction can greatly enhance the statistical power of clinical trial subgroup analysis.
    Hayward RA; Kent DM; Vijan S; Hofer TP
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2006 Apr; 6():18. PubMed ID: 16613605
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparison of the global statistical test and composite outcome for secondary analyses of multiple coronary heart disease outcomes.
    Baraniuk S; Seay R; Sinha AK; Piller LB
    Prog Cardiovasc Dis; 2012; 54(4):357-61. PubMed ID: 22226004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Characteristics of a loop of evidence that affect detection and estimation of inconsistency: a simulation study.
    Veroniki AA; Mavridis D; Higgins JP; Salanti G
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2014 Sep; 14():106. PubMed ID: 25239546
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Efficient two-step multivariate random effects meta-analysis of individual participant data for longitudinal clinical trials using mixed effects models.
    Noma H; Maruo K; Gosho M; Levine SZ; Goldberg Y; Leucht S; Furukawa TA
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Feb; 19(1):33. PubMed ID: 30764757
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Power behind the throne: A clinical trial simulation study evaluating the impact of controllable design factors on the power of antidepressant trials.
    Chevance A; Naudet F; Gaillard R; Ravaud P; Porcher R
    Int J Methods Psychiatr Res; 2019 Sep; 28(3):e1779. PubMed ID: 30997716
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Improving the analysis of composite endpoints in rare disease trials.
    McMenamin M; Berglind A; Wason JMS
    Orphanet J Rare Dis; 2018 May; 13(1):81. PubMed ID: 29788976
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Power determination for geographically clustered data using generalized estimating equations.
    Hendricks SA; Wassell JT; Collins JW; Sedlak SL
    Stat Med; 1996 Sep 15-30; 15(17-18):1951-60. PubMed ID: 8888487
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Properties and pitfalls of weighting as an alternative to multilevel multiple imputation in cluster randomized trials with missing binary outcomes under covariate-dependent missingness.
    Turner EL; Yao L; Li F; Prague M
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2020 May; 29(5):1338-1353. PubMed ID: 31293199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Multiplicity adjustment for composite binary endpoints.
    Rauch G; Kieser M
    Methods Inf Med; 2012; 51(4):309-17. PubMed ID: 22525969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.