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 *

178 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23307913)

  • 1. A logrank test-based method for sizing clinical trials with two co-primary time-to-event endpoints.
    Sugimoto T; Sozu T; Hamasaki T; Evans SR
    Biostatistics; 2013 Jul; 14(3):409-21. PubMed ID: 23307913
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Design and analysis of clinical trials with a bivariate failure time endpoint, with application to AIDS Clinical Trials Group Study A5142.
    DiRienzo AG; DeGruttola V
    Control Clin Trials; 2003 Apr; 24(2):122-34. PubMed ID: 12689734
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Designing exploratory cancer trials using change in tumour size as primary endpoint.
    Jaki T; André V; Su TL; Whitehead J
    Stat Med; 2013 Jul; 32(15):2544-54. PubMed ID: 23280944
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Sizing clinical trials when comparing bivariate time-to-event outcomes.
    Sugimoto T; Hamasaki T; Evans SR; Sozu T
    Stat Med; 2017 Apr; 36(9):1363-1382. PubMed ID: 28120524
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A new approach for sizing trials with composite binary endpoints using anticipated marginal values and accounting for the correlation between components.
    Bofill Roig M; Gómez Melis G
    Stat Med; 2019 May; 38(11):1935-1956. PubMed ID: 30637797
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A novel test to compare two treatments based on endpoints involving both nonfatal and fatal events.
    Potthoff RF; Halabi S
    Pharm Stat; 2015; 14(4):273-83. PubMed ID: 25894200
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparison of Time-to-First Event and Recurrent-Event Methods in Randomized Clinical Trials.
    Claggett B; Pocock S; Wei LJ; Pfeffer MA; McMurray JJV; Solomon SD
    Circulation; 2018 Aug; 138(6):570-577. PubMed ID: 29588314
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A group sequential Holm procedure with multiple primary endpoints.
    Ye Y; Li A; Liu L; Yao B
    Stat Med; 2013 Mar; 32(7):1112-24. PubMed ID: 23239078
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Generalized pairwise comparison methods to analyze (non)prioritized composite endpoints.
    Verbeeck J; Spitzer E; de Vries T; van Es GA; Anderson WN; Van Mieghem NM; Leon MB; Molenberghs G; Tijssen J
    Stat Med; 2019 Dec; 38(30):5641-5656. PubMed ID: 31659790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Review of Acute Treatment of Migraine Trial Results With the New FDA Endpoints: Design Implications for Future Trials.
    Hindiyeh NA; Kellerman DJ; Schmidt PC
    Headache; 2019 May; 59(5):819-824. PubMed ID: 30953576
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Hazard ratio inference in stratified clinical trials with time-to-event endpoints and limited sample size.
    Xu R; Mehrotra DV; Shaw PA
    Pharm Stat; 2019 May; 18(3):366-376. PubMed ID: 30706642
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Assessing temporal agreement between central and local progression-free survival times.
    Zeng D; Cornea E; Dong J; Pan J; Ibrahim JG
    Stat Med; 2015 Feb; 34(5):844-58. PubMed ID: 25393731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Blinded continuous monitoring in clinical trials with recurrent event endpoints.
    Friede T; Häring DA; Schmidli H
    Pharm Stat; 2019 Jan; 18(1):54-64. PubMed ID: 30345693
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Statistics in clinical trials.
    Green SJ; Pauler DK
    Curr Oncol Rep; 2004 Jan; 6(1):36-41. PubMed ID: 14664759
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A hierarchical rank test for crossover trials with censored data.
    Brittain E; Follmann D
    Stat Med; 2011 Dec; 30(30):3507-19. PubMed ID: 22139739
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Methods for the analysis of multiple endpoints in small populations: A review.
    Ristl R; Urach S; Rosenkranz G; Posch M
    J Biopharm Stat; 2019; 29(1):1-29. PubMed ID: 29985752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Evaluating futility of a binary clinical endpoint using early read-outs.
    Van Lancker K; Vandebosch A; Vansteelandt S; De Ridder F
    Stat Med; 2019 Dec; 38(28):5361-5375. PubMed ID: 31631357
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Many-to-one comparisons after safety selection in multi-arm clinical trials.
    Hlavin G; Hampson LV; Koenig F
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(6):e0180131. PubMed ID: 28651023
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Empirical power comparison of statistical tests in contemporary phase III randomized controlled trials with time-to-event outcomes in oncology.
    Horiguchi M; Hassett MJ; Uno H
    Clin Trials; 2020 Dec; 17(6):597-606. PubMed ID: 32933339
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.