50 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24122841)
1. Win Ratio -An Intuitive and Easy-To-Interpret Composite Outcome in Medical Studies.
Wang H; Peng J; Zheng JZ; Wang B; Lu X; Chen C; Tu XM; Feng C
Shanghai Arch Psychiatry; 2017 Feb; 29(1):55-60. PubMed ID: 28769547
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Intrinsic Capacity as a Composite Outcome Measure: Opportunities and Challenges.
Beard JR; Chen M
J Nutr Health Aging; 2023; 27(6):398-400. PubMed ID: 37357320
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. A hierarchical kidney outcome using win statistics in patients with heart failure from the DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials.
Kondo T; Jhund PS; Gasparyan SB; Yang M; Claggett BL; McCausland FR; Tolomeo P; Vadagunathan M; Heerspink HJL; Solomon SD; McMurray JJV
Nat Med; 2024 May; 30(5):1432-1439. PubMed ID: 38710952
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Composite endpoints, including patient reported outcomes, in rare diseases.
Verbeeck J; Dirani M; Bauer JW; Hilgers RD; Molenberghs G; Nabbout R
Orphanet J Rare Dis; 2023 Sep; 18(1):262. PubMed ID: 37658423
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Statistical models for composite endpoints of death and non-fatal events: a review.
Mao L; Kim K
Stat Biopharm Res; 2021; 13(3):260-269. PubMed ID: 34540133
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A framework for considering the risk-benefit trade-off in designing noninferiority trials using composite outcome approaches.
Montepiedra G; Ramchandani R; Miyahara S; Kim S
Stat Med; 2021 Jan; 40(2):327-348. PubMed ID: 33105524
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The inverse-probability-of-censoring weighting (IPCW) adjusted win ratio statistic: an unbiased estimator in the presence of independent censoring.
Dong G; Mao L; Huang B; Gamalo-Siebers M; Wang J; Yu G; Hoaglin DC
J Biopharm Stat; 2020 Sep; 30(5):882-899. PubMed ID: 32552451
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Applying a Risk-benefit Analysis to Outcomes in Tuberculosis Clinical Trials.
Miyahara S; Ramchandani R; Kim S; Evans SR; Gupta A; Swindells S; Chaisson RE; Montepiedra G
Clin Infect Dis; 2020 Feb; 70(4):698-703. PubMed ID: 31414121
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Introducing a new estimator and test for the weighted all-cause hazard ratio.
Ozga AK; Rauch G
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Jun; 19(1):118. PubMed ID: 31185922
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Establishing an evaluation mode with multiple primary outcomes based on combination of diseases and symptoms in TCM clinical trials.
Hu J; Liu S; Liu W; Zhang H; Chen J; Shang H
Ann Transl Med; 2017 Nov; 5(21):420. PubMed ID: 29201872
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A DAG-based comparison of interventional effect underestimation between composite endpoint and multi-state analysis in cardiovascular trials.
Jahn-Eimermacher A; Ingel K; Preussler S; Bayes-Genis A; Binder H
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Jul; 17(1):92. PubMed ID: 28676086
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Totality of outcomes: A different paradigm in assessing interventions for treatment of tuberculosis.
Montepiedra G; Yuen CM; Rich ML; Evans SR
J Clin Tuberc Other Mycobact Dis; 2016 Aug; 4():9-13. PubMed ID: 28042610
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Weighted analysis of composite endpoints with simultaneous inference for flexible weight constraints.
Duc AN; Wolbers M
Stat Med; 2017 Feb; 36(3):442-454. PubMed ID: 27782312
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Large sample inference for a win ratio analysis of a composite outcome based on prioritized components.
Bebu I; Lachin JM
Biostatistics; 2016 Jan; 17(1):178-87. PubMed ID: 26353896
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Opportunities and challenges of clinical trials in cardiology using composite primary endpoints.
Rauch G; Rauch B; Schüler S; Kieser M
World J Cardiol; 2015 Jan; 7(1):1-5. PubMed ID: 25632312
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Biomarker validation: common data analysis concerns.
Ensor JE
Oncologist; 2014 Aug; 19(8):886-91. PubMed ID: 25001264
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Opportunities and challenges of combined effect measures based on prioritized outcomes.
Rauch G; Jahn-Eimermacher A; Brannath W; Kieser M
Stat Med; 2014 Mar; 33(7):1104-20. PubMed ID: 24122841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A systematic comparison of recurrent event models for application to composite endpoints.
Ozga AK; Kieser M; Rauch G
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2018 Jan; 18(1):2. PubMed ID: 29301487
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Competing time-to-event endpoints in cardiology trials: a simulation study to illustrate the importance of an adequate statistical analysis.
Rauch G; Kieser M; Ulrich S; Doherty P; Rauch B; Schneider S; Riemer T; Senges J
Eur J Prev Cardiol; 2014 Jan; 21(1):74-80. PubMed ID: 22964966
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
