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 *

177 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21840173)

  • 1. The "best balance" allocation led to optimal balance in cluster-controlled trials.
    de Hoop E; Teerenstra S; van Gaal BG; Moerbeek M; Borm GF
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2012 Feb; 65(2):132-7. PubMed ID: 21840173
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Studies with group treatments required special power calculations, allocation methods, and statistical analyses.
    Faes MC; Reelick MF; Perry M; Olde Rikkert MG; Borm GF
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2012 Feb; 65(2):138-46. PubMed ID: 21856120
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Studywise minimization: a treatment allocation method that improves balance among treatment groups and makes allocation unpredictable.
    Perry M; Faes M; Reelick MF; Olde Rikkert MG; Borm GF
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2010 Oct; 63(10):1118-22. PubMed ID: 20304606
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Statistical comparison of random allocation methods in cancer clinical trials.
    Hagino A; Hamada C; Yoshimura I; Ohashi Y; Sakamoto J; Nakazato H
    Control Clin Trials; 2004 Dec; 25(6):572-84. PubMed ID: 15588744
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Randomization with a posteriori constraints: description and properties.
    Gicquel S; Marion-Gallois R
    Stat Med; 2007 Nov; 26(27):5033-45. PubMed ID: 17721873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. [Treatment by drawing lots in a therapeutic trial with a balance distribution of prognostic factors: the minimization method].
    Mollié A; Hill C
    Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique; 1988; 36(2):138-43. PubMed ID: 3045921
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparison of stratification and adaptive methods for treatment allocation in an acute stroke clinical trial.
    Weir CJ; Lees KR
    Stat Med; 2003 Mar; 22(5):705-26. PubMed ID: 12587101
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Pseudo cluster randomization: a treatment allocation method to minimize contamination and selection bias.
    Borm GF; Melis RJ; Teerenstra S; Peer PG
    Stat Med; 2005 Dec; 24(23):3535-47. PubMed ID: 16007575
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Comparing completely and stratified randomized designs in cluster randomized trials when the stratifying factor is cluster size: a simulation study.
    Lewsey JD
    Stat Med; 2004 Mar; 23(6):897-905. PubMed ID: 15027079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Randomization by minimization for unbalanced treatment allocation.
    Han B; Enas NH; McEntegart D
    Stat Med; 2009 Nov; 28(27):3329-46. PubMed ID: 19739238
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Dynamic balancing randomization in controlled clinical trials.
    Heritier S; Gebski V; Pillai A
    Stat Med; 2005 Dec; 24(24):3729-41. PubMed ID: 16320277
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Allocation of patients to conditions in headache clinical trials: randomization, stratification, and treatment matching.
    Lipchik GL; Nicholson RA; Penzien DB
    Headache; 2005 May; 45(5):419-28. PubMed ID: 15953258
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Use of simulation to compare the performance of minimization with stratified blocked randomization.
    Toorawa R; Adena M; Donovan M; Jones S; Conlon J
    Pharm Stat; 2009; 8(4):264-78. PubMed ID: 18756580
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Cluster without fluster: The effect of correlated outcomes on inference in randomized clinical trials.
    Proschan M; Follmann D
    Stat Med; 2008 Mar; 27(6):795-809. PubMed ID: 17594680
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. IRINI: random group allocation of multiple prognostic factors.
    Kasturi J; Geisler JG; Liu J; Kirchner T; Amaratunga D; Lubomirski M
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2011 May; 32(3):372-81. PubMed ID: 21187163
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Longitudinal and repeated cross-sectional cluster-randomization designs using mixed effects regression for binary outcomes: bias and coverage of frequentist and Bayesian methods.
    Localio AR; Berlin JA; Have TR
    Stat Med; 2006 Aug; 25(16):2720-36. PubMed ID: 16345043
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Cluster size variability and imbalance in cluster randomized controlled trials.
    Carter B
    Stat Med; 2010 Dec; 29(29):2984-93. PubMed ID: 20963749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Designing for cancer clinical trials: selection of prognostic factors.
    Brown BW
    Cancer Treat Rep; 1980; 64(2-3):499-502. PubMed ID: 7407790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Sample size re-estimation in cluster randomization trials.
    Lake S; Kammann E; Klar N; Betensky R
    Stat Med; 2002 May; 21(10):1337-50. PubMed ID: 12185888
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.