174 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26353896)
21. Hierarchical testing of composite endpoints: applying the win ratio to percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in the SYNTAX trial.
Milojevic M; Head SJ; Andrinopoulou ER; Serruys PW; Mohr FW; Tijssen JG; Kappetein AP
EuroIntervention; 2017 May; 13(1):106-114. PubMed ID: 28134125
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. 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]
23. Win Statistics in Observational Cancer Research: Integrating Clinical and Quality-of-Life Outcomes.
Chiaruttini MV; Lorenzoni G; Spolverato G; Gregori D
J Clin Med; 2024 May; 13(11):. PubMed ID: 38892983
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. Stratified proportional win-fractions regression analysis.
Wang T; Mao L
Stat Med; 2022 Nov; 41(26):5305-5318. PubMed ID: 36104953
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Event-specific win ratios and testing with terminal and non-terminal events.
Yang S; Troendle J
Clin Trials; 2021 Apr; 18(2):180-187. PubMed ID: 33231108
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. The win ratio approach for composite endpoints: practical guidance based on previous experience.
Redfors B; Gregson J; Crowley A; McAndrew T; Ben-Yehuda O; Stone GW; Pocock SJ
Eur Heart J; 2020 Dec; 41(46):4391-4399. PubMed ID: 32901285
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Estimating and testing for differential treatment effects on outcomes when the outcome variances differ.
Bodner TE
Psychol Methods; 2018 Mar; 23(1):125-137. PubMed ID: 29172608
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. 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]
29. Adjusting win statistics for dependent censoring.
Dong G; Huang B; Wang D; Verbeeck J; Wang J; Hoaglin DC
Pharm Stat; 2021 May; 20(3):440-450. PubMed ID: 33247544
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Fallacies of Using the Win Ratio in Cardiovascular Trials: Challenges and Solutions.
Ajufo E; Nayak A; Mehra MR
JACC Basic Transl Sci; 2023 Jun; 8(6):720-727. PubMed ID: 37426527
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Evidence synthesis analysis with prioritized benefit outcomes in oncology clinical trials.
Cui Y; Dong G; Kuan PF; Huang B
J Biopharm Stat; 2023 May; 33(3):272-288. PubMed ID: 36343174
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Use of win time for ordered composite endpoints in clinical trials.
Troendle JF; Leifer ES; Yang S; Jeffries N; Kim DY; Joo J; O'Connor CM
Stat Med; 2024 May; 43(10):1920-1932. PubMed ID: 38417455
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Win-loss parameters for right-censored event data, with application to recurrent events.
Parner ET; Overgaard M
Stat Med; 2023 Dec; 42(30):5723-5735. PubMed ID: 37897052
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Evaluation of inferential methods for the net benefit and win ratio statistics.
Verbeeck J; Ozenne B; Anderson WN
J Biopharm Stat; 2020 Sep; 30(5):765-782. PubMed ID: 32097079
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Determining the most appropriate components for a composite clinical trial outcome.
Bethel MA; Holman R; Haffner SM; Califf RM; Huntsman-Labed A; Hua TA; McMurray J
Am Heart J; 2008 Oct; 156(4):633-40. PubMed ID: 18926145
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. [Composite endpoints in clinical trials].
Ferreira-González I; Alonso-Coello P; Solà I; Pacheco-Huergo V; Domingo-Salvany A; Alonso J; Montori V; Permanyer-Miralda G
Rev Esp Cardiol; 2008 Mar; 61(3):283-90. PubMed ID: 18361902
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Use of the Win Ratio Analysis in Critical Care Trials.
Monzo L; Levy B; Duarte K; Baudry G; Combes A; Ouattara A; Delmas C; Kimmoun A; Girerd N
Am J Respir Crit Care Med; 2024 Apr; 209(7):798-804. PubMed ID: 38285595
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Design of paediatric trials with benefit-risk endpoints using a composite score of adverse events of interest (AEI) and win-statistics.
Seifu Y; Mt-Isa S; Duke K; Gamalo-Siebers M; Wang W; Dong G; Kolassa J
J Biopharm Stat; 2023 Nov; 33(6):696-707. PubMed ID: 36545791
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Win ratio approach for analyzing composite time-to-event endpoint with opposite treatment effects in its components.
Liao R; Chakladar S; Gamalo M
Pharm Stat; 2022 Nov; 21(6):1342-1356. PubMed ID: 35766113
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. What we want versus what we can get: a closer look at failure time endpoints for cardiovascular studies.
Song R; Cook TD; Kosorok MR
J Biopharm Stat; 2008; 18(2):370-81. PubMed ID: 18327727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
