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 *

206 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23983160)

  • 41. Prospective observational studies to assess comparative effectiveness: the ISPOR good research practices task force report.
    Berger ML; Dreyer N; Anderson F; Towse A; Sedrakyan A; Normand SL
    Value Health; 2012; 15(2):217-30. PubMed ID: 22433752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. The methods of comparative effectiveness research.
    Sox HC; Goodman SN
    Annu Rev Public Health; 2012 Apr; 33():425-45. PubMed ID: 22224891
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Bayesian adaptive dose-finding studies with delayed responses.
    Fu H; Manner D
    J Biopharm Stat; 2010 Sep; 20(5):1055-70. PubMed ID: 20721791
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Methods in comparative effectiveness research.
    Armstrong K
    J Clin Oncol; 2012 Dec; 30(34):4208-14. PubMed ID: 23071240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Bayesian adaptive patient enrollment restriction to identify a sensitive subpopulation using a continuous biomarker in a randomized phase 2 trial.
    Ohwada S; Morita S
    Pharm Stat; 2016 Sep; 15(5):420-9. PubMed ID: 27485377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Comparison of response adaptive randomization features in multiarm clinical trials with control.
    Viele K; Saville BR; McGlothlin A; Broglio K
    Pharm Stat; 2020 Sep; 19(5):602-612. PubMed ID: 32198968
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Bayesian data analysis in observational comparative effectiveness research: rationale and examples.
    Olson WH; Crivera C; Ma YW; Panish J; Mao L; Lynch SM
    J Comp Eff Res; 2013 Nov; 2(6):563-71. PubMed ID: 24236795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Bayesian adaptive decision-theoretic designs for multi-arm multi-stage clinical trials.
    Bassi A; Berkhof J; de Jong D; van de Ven PM
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2021 Mar; 30(3):717-730. PubMed ID: 33243087
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. A simulation study of outcome adaptive randomization in multi-arm clinical trials.
    Wathen JK; Thall PF
    Clin Trials; 2017 Oct; 14(5):432-440. PubMed ID: 28982263
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Conducting a bayesian multi-armed trial with response adaptive randomization for comparative effectiveness of medications for CSPN.
    Brown AR; Gajewski BJ; Mudaranthakam DP; Pasnoor M; Dimachkie MM; Jawdat O; Herbelin L; Mayo MS; Barohn RJ
    Contemp Clin Trials Commun; 2023 Dec; 36():101220. PubMed ID: 37965484
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Rationale and design for the Antihypertensive and Lipid Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). ALLHAT Research Group.
    Davis BR; Cutler JA; Gordon DJ; Furberg CD; Wright JT; Cushman WC; Grimm RH; LaRosa J; Whelton PK; Perry HM; Alderman MH; Ford CE; Oparil S; Francis C; Proschan M; Pressel S; Black HR; Hawkins CM
    Am J Hypertens; 1996 Apr; 9(4 Pt 1):342-60. PubMed ID: 8722437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Assessing noninferiority in a three-arm trial using the Bayesian approach.
    Ghosh P; Nathoo F; Gönen M; Tiwari RC
    Stat Med; 2011 Jul; 30(15):1795-808. PubMed ID: 21520456
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Preference option randomized design (PORD) for comparative effectiveness research: Statistical power for testing comparative effect, preference effect, selection effect, intent-to-treat effect, and overall effect.
    Heo M; Meissner P; Litwin AH; Arnsten JH; McKee MD; Karasz A; McKinley P; Rehm CD; Chambers EC; Yeh MC; Wylie-Rosett J
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2019 Feb; 28(2):626-640. PubMed ID: 29121828
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT): practical implications.
    Oparil S
    Hypertension; 2003 May; 41(5):1006-9. PubMed ID: 12695423
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Robust meta-analytic-predictive priors in clinical trials with historical control information.
    Schmidli H; Gsteiger S; Roychoudhury S; O'Hagan A; Spiegelhalter D; Neuenschwander B
    Biometrics; 2014 Dec; 70(4):1023-32. PubMed ID: 25355546
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Bayesian randomized clinical trials: From fixed to adaptive design.
    Yin G; Lam CK; Shi H
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2017 Aug; 59():77-86. PubMed ID: 28455232
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. PAYER PERSPECTIVES ON FUTURE ACCEPTABILITY OF COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS AND RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH.
    Moloney R; Mohr P; Hawe E; Shah K; Garau M; Towse A
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2015 Jan; 31(1-2):90-8. PubMed ID: 26168804
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Urn models for response-adaptive randomized designs: a simulation study based on a non-adaptive randomized trial.
    Ghiglietti A; Scarale MG; Miceli R; Ieva F; Mariani L; Gavazzi C; Paganoni AM; Edefonti V
    J Biopharm Stat; 2018; 28(6):1203-1215. PubMed ID: 29565749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Optimizing interim analysis timing for Bayesian adaptive commensurate designs.
    Wu X; Xu Y; Carlin BP
    Stat Med; 2020 Feb; 39(4):424-437. PubMed ID: 31799737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Bayesian evaluation of group sequential clinical trial designs.
    Emerson SS; Kittelson JM; Gillen DL
    Stat Med; 2007 Mar; 26(7):1431-49. PubMed ID: 17066402
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.