183 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24136868)
21. Composite event-free-survival as an endpoint in oncology drug evaluation: Review and guidance perspectives from the Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS).
Lengliné E; Baba J; de Boissieu P; Beaufils A; Desbiolles A; Diatta T; Cochat P; Chevret S
Eur J Cancer; 2024 Jun; 204():114047. PubMed ID: 38653034
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment.
Philips Z; Ginnelly L; Sculpher M; Claxton K; Golder S; Riemsma R; Woolacoot N; Glanville J
Health Technol Assess; 2004 Sep; 8(36):iii-iv, ix-xi, 1-158. PubMed ID: 15361314
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Correcting for dependent censoring in routine outcome monitoring data by applying the inverse probability censoring weighted estimator.
Willems S; Schat A; van Noorden MS; Fiocco M
Stat Methods Med Res; 2018 Feb; 27(2):323-335. PubMed ID: 26988930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Correcting treatment effect for treatment switching in randomized oncology trials with a modified iterative parametric estimation method.
Zhang J; Chen C
Stat Med; 2016 Sep; 35(21):3690-703. PubMed ID: 26919271
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Statistical considerations in the intent-to-treat principle.
Lachin JM
Control Clin Trials; 2000 Jun; 21(3):167-89. PubMed ID: 10822117
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Adjusting for Treatment Switching in Oncology Trials: A Systematic Review and Recommendations for Reporting.
Sullivan TR; Latimer NR; Gray J; Sorich MJ; Salter AB; Karnon J
Value Health; 2020 Mar; 23(3):388-396. PubMed ID: 32197735
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. On an enhanced rank-preserving structural failure time model to handle treatment switch, crossover, and dropout.
Li L; Tang S; Jiang L
Stat Med; 2017 May; 36(10):1532-1547. PubMed ID: 28110508
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. 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]
29. Predicting analysis time in events-driven clinical trials using accumulating time-to-event surrogate information.
Wang J; Ke C; Yu Z; Fu L; Dornseif B
Pharm Stat; 2016 May; 15(3):198-207. PubMed ID: 26689725
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Nonparametric adaptive enrichment designs using categorical surrogate data.
Brückner M; Burger HU; Brannath W
Stat Med; 2018 Dec; 37(29):4507-4524. PubMed ID: 30191578
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. The win ratio: Impact of censoring and follow-up time and use with nonproportional hazards.
Dong G; Huang B; Chang YW; Seifu Y; Song J; Hoaglin DC
Pharm Stat; 2020 May; 19(3):168-177. PubMed ID: 31671481
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Unicompartmental compared with total knee replacement for patients with multimorbidities: a cohort study using propensity score stratification and inverse probability weighting.
Prats-Uribe A; Kolovos S; Berencsi K; Carr A; Judge A; Silman A; Arden N; Petersen I; Douglas IJ; Wilkinson JM; Murray D; Valderas JM; Beard DJ; Lamb SE; Ali MS; Pinedo-Villanueva R; Strauss VY; Prieto-Alhambra D
Health Technol Assess; 2021 Nov; 25(66):1-126. PubMed ID: 34812138
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Making sense of clinical trial data: is inverse probability of censoring weighted analysis the answer to crossover bias?
Rimawi M; Hilsenbeck SG
J Clin Oncol; 2012 Feb; 30(4):453-8. PubMed ID: 22215751
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Adaptive Designs with Discrete Test Statistics and Consideration of Overrunning.
Schmidt R; Burkhardt B; Faldum A
Methods Inf Med; 2015; 54(5):434-46. PubMed ID: 26429500
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Utility values in health technology assessments: a statistician's perspective.
Whately-Smith C; Watkins C; Mann H; Fletcher C; Ducournau P
Pharm Stat; 2014; 13(3):184-95. PubMed ID: 24692364
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Clinical trials of interventional oncology-moving from efficacy to outcomes.
Franklin JM; Gebski V; Poston GJ; Sharma RA
Nat Rev Clin Oncol; 2015 Feb; 12(2):93-104. PubMed ID: 25488395
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Sensitivity to censored-at-random assumption in the analysis of time-to-event endpoints.
Lipkovich I; Ratitch B; O'Kelly M
Pharm Stat; 2016 May; 15(3):216-29. PubMed ID: 26997353
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Bias and Type I error Control in Correcting Treatment Effect for Treatment Switching Using Marginal Structural Models in Phase III Oncology Trials.
Xu J; Liu G; Wang B
J Biopharm Stat; 2022 Nov; 32(6):897-914. PubMed ID: 35656809
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Statistical considerations for the next generation of clinical trials.
Wu W; Shi Q; Sargent DJ
Semin Oncol; 2011 Aug; 38(4):598-604. PubMed ID: 21810519
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
