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 *

171 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26881805)

  • 21. Introducing a new estimator and test for the weighted all-cause hazard ratio.
    Ozga AK; Rauch G
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Jun; 19(1):118. PubMed ID: 31185922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Reducing unnecessary measurements in clinical trials with multiple primary endpoints.
    Sozu T; Sugimoto T; Hamasaki T
    J Biopharm Stat; 2016; 26(4):631-43. PubMed ID: 26098617
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Weighted false discovery rate controlling procedures for clinical trials.
    Benjamini Y; Cohen R
    Biostatistics; 2017 Jan; 18(1):91-104. PubMed ID: 27445132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Sample size determination in superiority clinical trials with multiple co-primary correlated endpoints.
    Sozu T; Sugimoto T; Hamasaki T
    J Biopharm Stat; 2011 Jul; 21(4):650-68. PubMed ID: 21516562
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Sample size determination in clinical trials with multiple co-primary endpoints including mixed continuous and binary variables.
    Sozu T; Sugimoto T; Hamasaki T
    Biom J; 2012 Sep; 54(5):716-29. PubMed ID: 22829198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Blinded sample size recalculation in clinical trials with binary composite endpoints.
    Sander A; Rauch G; Kieser M
    J Biopharm Stat; 2017; 27(4):705-715. PubMed ID: 27295402
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Gatekeeping testing via adaptive alpha allocation.
    Li JD; Mehrotra DV
    Biom J; 2008 Oct; 50(5):704-15. PubMed ID: 18932133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Easily applicable multiple testing procedures to improve the interpretation of clinical trials with composite endpoints.
    Schüler S; Mucha A; Doherty P; Kieser M; Rauch G
    Int J Cardiol; 2014 Jul; 175(1):126-32. PubMed ID: 24861257
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Planning and evaluating clinical trials with composite time-to-first-event endpoints in a competing risk framework.
    Rauch G; Beyersmann J
    Stat Med; 2013 Sep; 32(21):3595-608. PubMed ID: 23553898
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Robust inference for group sequential trials.
    Ganju J; Lin Y; Zhou K
    Pharm Stat; 2017 Mar; 16(2):167-173. PubMed ID: 28133895
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Comparison of proportions for composite endpoints with missing components.
    Li X; Caffo BS
    J Biopharm Stat; 2011 Mar; 21(2):271-81. PubMed ID: 21391001
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Selecting the primary endpoint in a randomized clinical trial: The ARE method.
    Plana-Ripoll O; Gómez G
    J Biopharm Stat; 2016; 26(5):880-98. PubMed ID: 26400217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Accurate p-values for adaptive designs with binary endpoints.
    Heritier S; Lloyd CJ; Lô SN
    Stat Med; 2017 Jul; 36(17):2643-2655. PubMed ID: 28470713
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Sample size determination in clinical trials with multiple co-primary binary endpoints.
    Sozu T; Sugimoto T; Hamasaki T
    Stat Med; 2010 Sep; 29(21):2169-79. PubMed ID: 20687162
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Addressing multiplicity issues of a composite endpoint and its components in clinical trials.
    Huque MF; Alosh M; Bhore R
    J Biopharm Stat; 2011 Jul; 21(4):610-34. PubMed ID: 21516560
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Three-arm noninferiority trials with a prespecified margin for inference of the difference in the proportions of binary endpoints.
    Hida E; Tango T
    J Biopharm Stat; 2013; 23(4):774-89. PubMed ID: 23799810
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Weighted composite time to event endpoints with recurrent events: comparison of three analytical approaches.
    Ozga AK; Rauch G
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2022 Feb; 22(1):38. PubMed ID: 35123397
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Familywise error for multiple time-to-event endpoints in a group sequential design.
    Thomsen HF; Lausvig NL; Pipper CB; Andersen S; Damgaard LH; Emerson SS; Ravn H
    Stat Med; 2024 Aug; 43(18):3417-3431. PubMed ID: 38852994
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. The fallback procedure for evaluating a single family of hypotheses.
    Wiens BL; Dmitrienko A
    J Biopharm Stat; 2005; 15(6):929-42. PubMed ID: 16279352
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Consistency ensured test strategies for supportive evidence of treatment efficacy in noninferiority clinical trials.
    Huque M; Valappil T; Alosh M
    J Biopharm Stat; 2018; 28(1):1-14. PubMed ID: 29173026
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.