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 *

156 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24218038)

  • 1. Futility rules in bioequivalence trials with sequential designs.
    Fuglsang A
    AAPS J; 2014 Jan; 16(1):79-82. PubMed ID: 24218038
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Optimal futility stopping boundaries for binary endpoints.
    Freitag MM; Li X; Rauch G
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2024 Mar; 24(1):80. PubMed ID: 38539108
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Modifications of sequential designs in bioequivalence trials.
    Zheng C; Zhao L; Wang J
    Pharm Stat; 2015; 14(3):180-8. PubMed ID: 25663282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Optimal adaptive sequential designs for crossover bioequivalence studies.
    Xu J; Audet C; DiLiberti CE; Hauck WW; Montague TH; Parr AF; Potvin D; Schuirmann DJ
    Pharm Stat; 2016; 15(1):15-27. PubMed ID: 26538182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of futility monitoring guidelines using completed phase III oncology trials.
    Zhang Q; Freidlin B; Korn EL; Halabi S; Mandrekar S; Dignam JJ
    Clin Trials; 2017 Feb; 14(1):48-58. PubMed ID: 27590208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A comparison of group sequential and fixed sample size designs for bioequivalence trials with highly variable drugs.
    Knahl SIE; Lang B; Fleischer F; Kieser M
    Eur J Clin Pharmacol; 2018 May; 74(5):549-559. PubMed ID: 29362819
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Upstrapping to determine futility: predicting future outcomes nonparametrically from past data.
    Wild JL; Ginde AA; Lindsell CJ; Kaizer AM
    Trials; 2024 May; 25(1):312. PubMed ID: 38725072
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Sequential bioequivalence trial designs with increased power and controlled type I error rates.
    Fuglsang A
    AAPS J; 2013 Jul; 15(3):659-61. PubMed ID: 23543603
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Optimality criteria for futility stopping boundaries for group sequential designs with a continuous endpoint.
    Li X; Herrmann C; Rauch G
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2020 Nov; 20(1):274. PubMed ID: 33153438
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. An iterative method to protect the type I error rate in bioequivalence studies under two-stage adaptive 2×2 crossover designs.
    Molins E; Labes D; Schütz H; Cobo E; Ocaña J
    Biom J; 2021 Jan; 63(1):122-133. PubMed ID: 33000873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Sequential design approaches for bioequivalence studies with crossover designs.
    Potvin D; DiLiberti CE; Hauck WW; Parr AF; Schuirmann DJ; Smith RA
    Pharm Stat; 2008; 7(4):245-62. PubMed ID: 17710740
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Futility stopping in clinical trials, optimality and practical considerations.
    Chang Y; Song T; Monaco J; Ivanova A
    J Biopharm Stat; 2020 Nov; 30(6):1050-1059. PubMed ID: 32926648
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The type II error probability of a group sequential test of efficacy and futility, and considerations for power and sample size.
    Dobbins TW
    J Biopharm Stat; 2013 Mar; 23(2):378-93. PubMed ID: 23437945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Beta spending function based on conditional power in group sequential design.
    Ni S; Zhong Z; Jiang Z; Zhao Y; Wu J; Yu H; Bai J
    Biom J; 2024 Apr; 66(3):e2300094. PubMed ID: 38581099
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The role of the upper sample size limit in two-stage bioequivalence designs.
    Karalis V
    Int J Pharm; 2013 Nov; 456(1):87-94. PubMed ID: 23954235
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Two-stage designs in bioequivalence trials.
    Schütz H
    Eur J Clin Pharmacol; 2015 Mar; 71(3):271-81. PubMed ID: 25604509
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Interim analysis incorporating short- and long-term binary endpoints.
    Niewczas J; Kunz CU; König F
    Biom J; 2019 May; 61(3):665-687. PubMed ID: 30694566
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Operating characteristics of sample size re-estimation with futility stopping based on conditional power.
    Lachin JM
    Stat Med; 2006 Oct; 25(19):3348-65. PubMed ID: 16345019
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A systematic survey of randomised trials that stopped early for reasons of futility.
    Walter SD; Han H; Guyatt GH; Bassler D; Bhatnagar N; Gloy V; Schandelmaier S; Briel M
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2020 Jan; 20(1):10. PubMed ID: 31948397
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Choice of futility boundaries for group sequential designs with two endpoints.
    Schüler S; Kieser M; Rauch G
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Aug; 17(1):119. PubMed ID: 28789615
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.