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 *

278 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25098243)

  • 1. An approach to trial design and analysis in the era of non-proportional hazards of the treatment effect.
    Royston P; Parmar MK
    Trials; 2014 Aug; 15():314. PubMed ID: 25098243
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A simulation study comparing the power of nine tests of the treatment effect in randomized controlled trials with a time-to-event outcome.
    Royston P; B Parmar MK
    Trials; 2020 Apr; 21(1):315. PubMed ID: 32252820
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Are non-constant rates and non-proportional treatment effects accounted for in the design and analysis of randomised controlled trials? A review of current practice.
    Jachno K; Heritier S; Wolfe R
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 May; 19(1):103. PubMed ID: 31096924
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Augmenting the logrank test in the design of clinical trials in which non-proportional hazards of the treatment effect may be anticipated.
    Royston P; Parmar MK
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2016 Feb; 16():16. PubMed ID: 26869168
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Using the geometric average hazard ratio in sample size calculation for time-to-event data with composite endpoints.
    Cortés Martínez J; Geskus RB; Kim K; Melis GG
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 May; 21(1):99. PubMed ID: 33957892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The Average Hazard Ratio - A Good Effect Measure for Time-to-event Endpoints when the Proportional Hazard Assumption is Violated?
    Rauch G; Brannath W; Brückner M; Kieser M
    Methods Inf Med; 2018 May; 57(3):89-100. PubMed ID: 29719915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparison of survival distributions in clinical trials: A practical guidance.
    Chen X; Wang X; Chen K; Zheng Y; Chappell RJ; Dey J
    Clin Trials; 2020 Oct; 17(5):507-521. PubMed ID: 32594788
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Restricted mean survival time: an alternative to the hazard ratio for the design and analysis of randomized trials with a time-to-event outcome.
    Royston P; Parmar MK
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2013 Dec; 13():152. PubMed ID: 24314264
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Utilizing the integrated difference of two survival functions to quantify the treatment contrast for designing, monitoring, and analyzing a comparative clinical study.
    Zhao L; Tian L; Uno H; Solomon SD; Pfeffer MA; Schindler JS; Wei LJ
    Clin Trials; 2012 Oct; 9(5):570-7. PubMed ID: 22914867
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A clinical trial design using the concept of proportional time using the generalized gamma ratio distribution.
    Phadnis MA; Wetmore JB; Mayo MS
    Stat Med; 2017 Nov; 36(26):4121-4140. PubMed ID: 28815655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Sample size calculation for the augmented logrank test in randomized clinical trials.
    Hattori S; Komukai S; Friede T
    Stat Med; 2022 Jun; 41(14):2627-2644. PubMed ID: 35319100
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Combined test versus logrank/Cox test in 50 randomised trials.
    Royston P; Choodari-Oskooei B; Parmar MKB; Rogers JK
    Trials; 2019 Mar; 20(1):172. PubMed ID: 30885277
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A comparison of different population-level summary measures for randomised trials with time-to-event outcomes, with a focus on non-inferiority trials.
    Quartagno M; Morris TP; Gilbert DC; Langley RE; Nankivell MG; Parmar MK; White IR
    Clin Trials; 2023 Dec; 20(6):594-602. PubMed ID: 37337728
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Sample size calculation for the combination test under nonproportional hazards.
    Cheng H; He J
    Biom J; 2023 Apr; 65(4):e2100403. PubMed ID: 36789566
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Hazard ratio inference in stratified clinical trials with time-to-event endpoints and limited sample size.
    Xu R; Mehrotra DV; Shaw PA
    Pharm Stat; 2019 May; 18(3):366-376. PubMed ID: 30706642
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A flexible and coherent test/estimation procedure based on restricted mean survival times for censored time-to-event data in randomized clinical trials.
    Horiguchi M; Cronin AM; Takeuchi M; Uno H
    Stat Med; 2018 Jul; 37(15):2307-2320. PubMed ID: 29682762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The type I error and power of non-parametric logrank and Wilcoxon tests with adjustment for covariates--a simulation study.
    Jiang H; Symanowski J; Paul S; Qu Y; Zagar A; Hong S
    Stat Med; 2008 Dec; 27(28):5850-60. PubMed ID: 18759373
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Analysis of time-to-event data using a flexible mixture model under a constraint of proportional hazards.
    Liu GF; Liao JJZ
    J Biopharm Stat; 2020 Sep; 30(5):783-796. PubMed ID: 32589509
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Estimation of treatment effect under non-proportional hazards and conditionally independent censoring.
    Boyd AP; Kittelson JM; Gillen DL
    Stat Med; 2012 Dec; 31(28):3504-15. PubMed ID: 22763957
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Investigating non-inferiority or equivalence in time-to-event data under non-proportional hazards.
    Möllenhoff K; Tresch A
    Lifetime Data Anal; 2023 Jul; 29(3):483-507. PubMed ID: 36708450
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.