176 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20721788)
1. Retrospective robustness of the continual reassessment method.
O'Quigley J; Zohar S
J Biopharm Stat; 2010 Sep; 20(5):1013-25. PubMed ID: 20721788
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A comparison of model choices for the Continual Reassessment Method in phase I cancer trials.
Paoletti X; Kramar A
Stat Med; 2009 Oct; 28(24):3012-28. PubMed ID: 19672839
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Dose-escalation designs in oncology: ADEPT and the CRM.
Shu J; O'Quigley J
Stat Med; 2008 Nov; 27(26):5345-53; discussion 5354-5. PubMed ID: 18752259
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Retrospective analysis of sequential dose-finding designs.
O'Quigley J
Biometrics; 2005 Sep; 61(3):749-56. PubMed ID: 16135026
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Sensitivity of dose-finding studies to observation errors.
Zohar S; O'Quigley J
Contemp Clin Trials; 2009 Nov; 30(6):523-30. PubMed ID: 19580886
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Three-dose-cohort designs in cancer phase I trials.
Huang B; Chappell R
Stat Med; 2008 May; 27(12):2070-93. PubMed ID: 17764082
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Designing dose-escalation trials with late-onset toxicities using the time-to-event continual reassessment method.
Normolle D; Lawrence T
J Clin Oncol; 2006 Sep; 24(27):4426-33. PubMed ID: 16983110
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The continual reassessment method for dose-finding studies: a tutorial.
Garrett-Mayer E
Clin Trials; 2006; 3(1):57-71. PubMed ID: 16539090
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Heterogeneity in phase I clinical trials: prior elicitation and computation using the continual reassessment method.
Legedza AT; Ibrahim JG
Stat Med; 2001 Mar; 20(6):867-82. PubMed ID: 11252009
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Two-sample continual reassessment method.
O'Quigley J; Shen LZ; Gamst A
J Biopharm Stat; 1999 Mar; 9(1):17-44. PubMed ID: 10091908
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Assessment of various continual reassessment method models for dose-escalation phase 1 oncology clinical trials: using real clinical data and simulation studies.
James GD; Symeonides S; Marshall J; Young J; Clack G
BMC Cancer; 2021 Jan; 21(1):7. PubMed ID: 33402104
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Optimal phase I dose-escalation trial designs in oncology--a simulation study.
Gerke O; Siedentop H
Stat Med; 2008 Nov; 27(26):5329-44. PubMed ID: 17849502
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Toxicity equivalence range design (TEQR): a practical Phase I design.
Blanchard MS; Longmate JA
Contemp Clin Trials; 2011 Jan; 32(1):114-21. PubMed ID: 20923709
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Posterior maximization and averaging for Bayesian working model choice in the continual reassessment method.
Daimon T; Zohar S; O'Quigley J
Stat Med; 2011 Jun; 30(13):1563-73. PubMed ID: 21351288
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Performance of toxicity probability interval based designs in contrast to the continual reassessment method.
Horton BJ; Wages NA; Conaway MR
Stat Med; 2017 Jan; 36(2):291-300. PubMed ID: 27435150
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A two-stage dose selection strategy in phase I trials with wide dose ranges.
Wang O; Faries DE
J Biopharm Stat; 2000 Aug; 10(3):319-33. PubMed ID: 10959914
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Continual reassessment designs with early termination.
O'Quigley J
Biostatistics; 2002 Mar; 3(1):87-99. PubMed ID: 12933626
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Dose-finding designs in pediatric phase I clinical trials: comparison by simulations in a realistic timeline framework.
Doussau A; Asselain B; Le Deley MC; Geoerger B; Doz F; Vassal G; Paoletti X
Contemp Clin Trials; 2012 Jul; 33(4):657-65. PubMed ID: 22521954
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A default method to specify skeletons for Bayesian model averaging continual reassessment method for phase I clinical trials.
Pan H; Yuan Y
Stat Med; 2017 Jan; 36(2):266-279. PubMed ID: 26991076
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A two-stage algorithm for designing phase I cancer clinical trials for two new molecular entities.
Su Z
Contemp Clin Trials; 2010 Jan; 31(1):105-7. PubMed ID: 19879974
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
