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 *

130 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23664493)

  • 1. Optimal type I and type II error pairs when the available sample size is fixed.
    Ioannidis JP; Hozo I; Djulbegovic B
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2013 Aug; 66(8):903-910.e2. PubMed ID: 23664493
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Sample size determination with familywise control of both type I and type II errors in clinical trials.
    Wang B; Ting N
    J Biopharm Stat; 2016; 26(5):951-65. PubMed ID: 26881972
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Random error in cardiovascular meta-analyses: how common are false positive and false negative results?
    AlBalawi Z; McAlister FA; Thorlund K; Wong M; Wetterslev J
    Int J Cardiol; 2013 Sep; 168(2):1102-7. PubMed ID: 23218569
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Type II error in the spine surgical literature.
    Bailey CS; Fisher CG; Dvorak MF
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2004 May; 29(10):1146-9. PubMed ID: 15131445
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. An adaptive design to bridge the gap between Phase 2b/3 microbicide effectiveness trials and evidence required for licensure.
    Taylor DJ; Grobler A; Abdool Karim SS
    Clin Trials; 2012 Aug; 9(4):377-84. PubMed ID: 22610168
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Meta-analysis with standardized effect sizes from multilevel and latent growth models.
    Feingold A
    J Consult Clin Psychol; 2017 Mar; 85(3):262-266. PubMed ID: 28068118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparison of single-arm vs. randomized phase II clinical trials: a Bayesian approach.
    Sambucini V
    J Biopharm Stat; 2015; 25(3):474-89. PubMed ID: 24896838
    [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. Control of false positives in randomized phase III clinical trials.
    Shen C; Liu Z; Xu H; Liu H; Yue C
    J Biopharm Stat; 2017; 27(5):719-731. PubMed ID: 27653151
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The value of information and optimal clinical trial design.
    Willan AR; Pinto EM
    Stat Med; 2005 Jun; 24(12):1791-806. PubMed ID: 15806619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Utility-based optimization of phase II/III programs.
    Kirchner M; Kieser M; Götte H; Schüler A
    Stat Med; 2016 Jan; 35(2):305-16. PubMed ID: 26256550
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Generalized optimal design for two-arm, randomized phase II clinical trials with endpoints from the exponential dispersion family.
    Jiang W; Mahnken JD; He J; Mayo MS
    Pharm Stat; 2016 Nov; 15(6):459-470. PubMed ID: 27511063
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Sample size calculation for treatment effects in randomized trials with fixed cluster sizes and heterogeneous intraclass correlations and variances.
    Candel MJ; van Breukelen GJ
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2015 Oct; 24(5):557-73. PubMed ID: 25519890
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Effect of a misspecification of response rates on type I and type II errors, in a phase II Simon design.
    Baey C; Le Deley MC
    Eur J Cancer; 2011 Jul; 47(11):1647-52. PubMed ID: 21493059
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Optimal two-stage log-rank test for randomized phase II clinical trials.
    Kwak M; Jung SH
    J Biopharm Stat; 2017; 27(4):639-658. PubMed ID: 27050043
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A seamless phase II/III design with sample-size re-estimation.
    Bischoff W; Miller F
    J Biopharm Stat; 2009 Jul; 19(4):595-609. PubMed ID: 20183428
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Optimal sample size allocation and go/no-go decision rules for phase II/III programs where several phase III trials are performed.
    Preussler S; Kieser M; Kirchner M
    Biom J; 2019 Mar; 61(2):357-378. PubMed ID: 30182372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Optimal two-stage randomized phase II clinical trials.
    Logan BR
    Clin Trials; 2005; 2(1):5-12. PubMed ID: 16279574
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.