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 *

179 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23169334)

  • 1. Smaller sample sizes for phase II trials based on exact tests with actual error rates by trading-off their nominal levels of significance and power.
    Khan I; Sarker SJ; Hackshaw A
    Br J Cancer; 2012 Nov; 107(11):1801-9. PubMed ID: 23169334
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Sample size computation in phase II designs combining the A'Hern design and the Sargent and Goldberg design.
    Neven A; Mauer M; Hasan B; Sylvester R; Collette L
    J Biopharm Stat; 2020 Mar; 30(2):305-321. PubMed ID: 31331234
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparison of error rates in single-arm versus randomized phase II cancer clinical trials.
    Tang H; Foster NR; Grothey A; Ansell SM; Goldberg RM; Sargent DJ
    J Clin Oncol; 2010 Apr; 28(11):1936-41. PubMed ID: 20212253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Statistical issues for design and analysis of single-arm multi-stage phase II cancer clinical trials.
    Jung SH
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2015 May; 42():9-17. PubMed ID: 25749311
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Practical and robust test for comparing binomial proportions in the randomized phase II setting.
    Attwood K; Park S; Hutson AD
    Pharm Stat; 2022 Mar; 21(2):361-371. PubMed ID: 34626075
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Quantitative evaluation of single-arm versus randomized phase II cancer clinical trials.
    Pond GR; Abbasi S
    Clin Trials; 2011 Jun; 8(3):260-9. PubMed ID: 21511687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: quantifying the risks of false-positives and false-negatives.
    Brookes ST; Whitley E; Peters TJ; Mulheran PA; Egger M; Davey Smith G
    Health Technol Assess; 2001; 5(33):1-56. PubMed ID: 11701102
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Design of randomized clinical trials with a binary endpoint: Conditional versus unconditional analyses of a two-by-two table.
    Korn EL; Freidlin B
    Stat Med; 2024 Jul; 43(16):3109-3123. PubMed ID: 38780538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Randomized phase II trials with a prospective control.
    Jung SH
    Stat Med; 2008 Feb; 27(4):568-83. PubMed ID: 17573688
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Relative efficiency and sample size for cluster randomized trials with variable cluster sizes.
    You Z; Williams OD; Aban I; Kabagambe EK; Tiwari HK; Cutter G
    Clin Trials; 2011 Feb; 8(1):27-36. PubMed ID: 21163852
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Two-stage optimal designs based on exact variance for a single-arm trial with survival endpoints.
    Shan G
    J Biopharm Stat; 2020 Sep; 30(5):797-805. PubMed ID: 32129130
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Taking the long view: how to design a series of Phase III trials to maximize cumulative therapeutic benefit.
    Deley MC; Ballman KV; Marandet J; Sargent D
    Clin Trials; 2012 Jun; 9(3):283-92. PubMed ID: 22569743
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Minimization of sample size when comparing two small probabilities in a non-inferiority safety trial.
    de Boo TM; Zielhuis GA
    Stat Med; 2004 Jun; 23(11):1683-99. PubMed ID: 15160402
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A Bayesian approach for unplanned sample sizes in phase II cancer clinical trials.
    Li Y; Mick R; Heitjan DF
    Clin Trials; 2012 Jun; 9(3):293-302. PubMed ID: 22523304
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The future of Cochrane Neonatal.
    Soll RF; Ovelman C; McGuire W
    Early Hum Dev; 2020 Nov; 150():105191. PubMed ID: 33036834
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Exact two-stage designs for phase II activity trials with rank-based endpoints.
    Wilding GE; Shan G; Hutson AD
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2012 Mar; 33(2):332-41. PubMed ID: 22074983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Randomized two-stage Phase II clinical trial designs based on Barnard's exact test.
    Shan G; Ma C; Hutson AD; Wilding GE
    J Biopharm Stat; 2013; 23(5):1081-90. PubMed ID: 23957517
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Adaptive designs for single-arm phase II trials in oncology.
    Englert S; Kieser M
    Pharm Stat; 2012; 11(3):241-9. PubMed ID: 22411839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A method for utilizing co-primary efficacy outcome measures to screen regimens for activity in two-stage Phase II clinical trials.
    Sill MW; Rubinstein L; Litwin S; Yothers G
    Clin Trials; 2012 Aug; 9(4):385-95. PubMed ID: 22811448
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.