190 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27114326)
1. 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]
2. 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]
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. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
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. Empirical power comparison of statistical tests in contemporary phase III randomized controlled trials with time-to-event outcomes in oncology.
Horiguchi M; Hassett MJ; Uno H
Clin Trials; 2020 Dec; 17(6):597-606. PubMed ID: 32933339
[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. 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]
15. Power and sample sizes estimation in clinical trials with treatment switching in intention-to-treat analysis: a simulation study.
Deng L; Hsu CY; Shyr Y
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2023 Feb; 23(1):49. PubMed ID: 36823545
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. How serious is bias in effect estimation in randomised trials with survival data given risk heterogeneity and informative censoring?
McNamee R
Stat Med; 2017 Sep; 36(21):3315-3333. PubMed ID: 28621000
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Interim analysis of binary outcome data in clinical trials: a comparison of five estimators.
Lu QS; Chow SC; Tse SK
J Biopharm Stat; 2019; 29(2):400-410. PubMed ID: 30599798
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]