162 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25416688)
1. Adjusting for treatment switching in randomised controlled trials - A simulation study and a simplified two-stage method.
Latimer NR; Abrams KR; Lambert PC; Crowther MJ; Wailoo AJ; Morden JP; Akehurst RL; Campbell MJ
Stat Methods Med Res; 2017 Apr; 26(2):724-751. PubMed ID: 25416688
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Assessing methods for dealing with treatment switching in clinical trials: A follow-up simulation study.
Latimer NR; Abrams KR; Lambert PC; Morden JP; Crowther MJ
Stat Methods Med Res; 2018 Mar; 27(3):765-784. PubMed ID: 27114326
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Two-stage estimation to adjust for treatment switching in randomised trials: a simulation study investigating the use of inverse probability weighting instead of re-censoring.
Latimer NR; Abrams KR; Siebert U
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Mar; 19(1):69. PubMed ID: 30935369
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Causal inference for long-term survival in randomised trials with treatment switching: Should re-censoring be applied when estimating counterfactual survival times?
Latimer NR; White IR; Abrams KR; Siebert U
Stat Methods Med Res; 2019 Aug; 28(8):2475-2493. PubMed ID: 29940824
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Improved two-stage estimation to adjust for treatment switching in randomised trials: g-estimation to address time-dependent confounding.
Latimer NR; White IR; Tilling K; Siebert U
Stat Methods Med Res; 2020 Oct; 29(10):2900-2918. PubMed ID: 32223524
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A cautionary tale: an evaluation of the performance of treatment switching adjustment methods in a real world case study.
Latimer NR; Dewdney A; Campioni M
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2024 Jan; 24(1):17. PubMed ID: 38253996
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Adjusting survival time estimates to account for treatment switching in randomized controlled trials--an economic evaluation context: methods, limitations, and recommendations.
Latimer NR; Abrams KR; Lambert PC; Crowther MJ; Wailoo AJ; Morden JP; Akehurst RL; Campbell MJ
Med Decis Making; 2014 Apr; 34(3):387-402. PubMed ID: 24449433
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Assessing methods for dealing with treatment switching in randomised controlled trials: a simulation study.
Morden JP; Lambert PC; Latimer N; Abrams KR; Wailoo AJ
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2011 Jan; 11():4. PubMed ID: 21223539
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Adjusting overall survival for treatment switches: commonly used methods and practical application.
Watkins C; Huang X; Latimer N; Tang Y; Wright EJ
Pharm Stat; 2013; 12(6):348-57. PubMed ID: 24136868
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The net benefit for time-to-event outcome in oncology clinical trials with treatment switching.
Fukuda M; Sakamaki K; Oba K
Clin Trials; 2023 Dec; 20(6):670-680. PubMed ID: 37455538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Methods for adjusting for bias due to crossover in oncology trials.
Ishak KJ; Proskorovsky I; Korytowsky B; Sandin R; Faivre S; Valle J
Pharmacoeconomics; 2014 Jun; 32(6):533-46. PubMed ID: 24595585
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A Validation Study of the Rank-Preserving Structural Failure Time Model: Confidence Intervals and Unique, Multiple, and Erroneous Solutions.
Ouwens M; Hauch O; Franzén S
Med Decis Making; 2018 May; 38(4):509-519. PubMed ID: 29607730
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Assessing temporal agreement between central and local progression-free survival times.
Zeng D; Cornea E; Dong J; Pan J; Ibrahim JG
Stat Med; 2015 Feb; 34(5):844-58. PubMed ID: 25393731
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Appropriate statistical methods for analysing partially nested randomised controlled trials with continuous outcomes: a simulation study.
Candlish J; Teare MD; Dimairo M; Flight L; Mandefield L; Walters SJ
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2018 Oct; 18(1):105. PubMed ID: 30314463
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Gaining power and precision by using model-based weights in the analysis of late stage cancer trials with substantial treatment switching.
Bowden J; Seaman S; Huang X; White IR
Stat Med; 2016 Apr; 35(9):1423-40. PubMed ID: 26576494
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Adjusting Overall Survival Estimates of Macitentan in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension After Treatment Switching: Results from the SERAPHIN Study.
Di Scala L; Bacchi M; Bayer B; Turricchia S
Adv Ther; 2022 Sep; 39(9):4346-4358. PubMed ID: 35917059
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
