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 *

88 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22623328)

  • 1. Surrogate, friend or foe? The need for case studies of the use of surrogate outcomes in cost-effectiveness analyses.
    Ciani O; Taylor RS
    Health Econ; 2013 Feb; 22(2):251-2. PubMed ID: 22623328
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Surrogates, meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness modelling: a combined analytic approach.
    Hawkins N; Richardson G; Sutton AJ; Cooper NJ; Griffiths C; Rogers A; Bower P
    Health Econ; 2012 Jun; 21(6):742-56. PubMed ID: 21796723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A unified framework for the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in mental-health clinical trials.
    Molenberghs G; Burzykowski T; Alonso A; Assam P; Tilahun A; Buyse M
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2010 Jun; 19(3):205-36. PubMed ID: 19608602
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Exploring the relationship between the causal-inference and meta-analytic paradigms for the evaluation of surrogate endpoints.
    Van der Elst W; Molenberghs G; Alonso A
    Stat Med; 2016 Apr; 35(8):1281-98. PubMed ID: 26612787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Prentice's approach and the meta-analytic paradigm: a reflection on the role of statistics in the evaluation of surrogate endpoints.
    Alonso A; Molenberghs G; Burzykowski T; Renard D; Geys H; Shkedy Z; Tibaldi F; Abrahantes JC; Buyse M
    Biometrics; 2004 Sep; 60(3):724-8. PubMed ID: 15339295
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The use of surrogate outcomes in model-based cost-effectiveness analyses: a survey of UK Health Technology Assessment reports.
    Taylor RS; Elston J
    Health Technol Assess; 2009 Jan; 13(8):iii, ix-xi, 1-50. PubMed ID: 19203465
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Quantifying the effect of the surrogate marker by information gain.
    Qu Y; Case M
    Biometrics; 2007 Sep; 63(3):958-62; author reply 962-3. PubMed ID: 17825025
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Does the decision in a validation process of a surrogate endpoint change with level of significance of treatment effect? A proposal on validation of surrogate endpoints.
    Sertdemir Y; Burgut R
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2009 Jan; 30(1):8-12. PubMed ID: 18809512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [Meta-analyses or megatrials: same level of proof?].
    Mismetti P; Cucherat M; Laporte S
    Presse Med; 2007 Mar; 36(3 Pt 2):524-30. PubMed ID: 17275251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. On the relationship between the causal-inference and meta-analytic paradigms for the validation of surrogate endpoints.
    Alonso A; Van der Elst W; Molenberghs G; Buyse M; Burzykowski T
    Biometrics; 2015 Mar; 71(1):15-24. PubMed ID: 25274284
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Practical and updated guidelines on performing meta-analyses of non-randomized studies in interventional cardiology.
    Navarese EP; Koziński M; Pafundi T; Andreotti F; Buffon A; Servi SD; Kubica J
    Cardiol J; 2011; 18(1):3-7. PubMed ID: 21305479
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Letter to the editor: a comment on Lynch et al. (2009).
    Lincoln TM
    Psychol Med; 2010 May; 40(5):877-80. PubMed ID: 19917145
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Use of surrogate outcomes in cost-effectiveness models: a review of United Kingdom health technology assessment reports.
    Elston J; Taylor RS
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2009 Jan; 25(1):6-13. PubMed ID: 19126246
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Trial design and reporting standards for intra-arterial cerebral thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke.
    Higashida RT; Furlan AJ; Roberts H; Tomsick T; Connors B; Barr J; Dillon W; Warach S; Broderick J; Tilley B; Sacks D; ;
    Stroke; 2003 Aug; 34(8):e109-37. PubMed ID: 12869717
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Surrogate threshold effect: an alternative measure for meta-analytic surrogate endpoint validation.
    Burzykowski T; Buyse M
    Pharm Stat; 2006; 5(3):173-86. PubMed ID: 17080751
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Use of meta-analysis for the validation of surrogate endpoints and biomarkers in cancer trials.
    Buyse M
    Cancer J; 2009; 15(5):421-5. PubMed ID: 19826362
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Identification and impact of outcome selection bias in meta-analysis.
    Williamson PR; Gamble C
    Stat Med; 2005 May; 24(10):1547-61. PubMed ID: 15580591
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A systematic review and economic evaluation of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of aldosterone antagonists for postmyocardial infarction heart failure.
    McKenna C; Burch J; Suekarran S; Walker S; Bakhai A; Witte K; Harden M; Wright K; Woolacott N; Lorgelly P; Fenwick L; Palmer S
    Health Technol Assess; 2010 May; 14(24):1-162. PubMed ID: 20492762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [Meta-analysis as a tool for gaining knowledge].
    Koch A; Ziegler S
    Med Klin (Munich); 2000 May; 95(1 Spec No):83-90. PubMed ID: 10851854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. How can we make the results of trials and their meta-analyses using continuous outcomes clinically interpretable?
    Furukawa TA
    Acta Psychiatr Scand; 2014 Nov; 130(5):321-3. PubMed ID: 24725079
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.