172 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27766770)
1. Accounting for uncertainty in the historical response rate of the standard treatment in single-arm two-stage designs based on Bayesian power functions.
Matano F; Sambucini V
Pharm Stat; 2016 Nov; 15(6):517-530. PubMed ID: 27766770
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Bayesian sample size determination for phase IIA clinical trials using historical data and semi-parametric prior's elicitation.
Berchialla P; Zohar S; Baldi I
Pharm Stat; 2019 Mar; 18(2):198-211. PubMed ID: 30440109
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A Bayesian predictive two-stage design for phase II clinical trials.
Sambucini V
Stat Med; 2008 Apr; 27(8):1199-224. PubMed ID: 17763528
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A randomized two-stage design for phase II clinical trials based on a Bayesian predictive approach.
Cellamare M; Sambucini V
Stat Med; 2015 Mar; 34(6):1059-78. PubMed ID: 25545805
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A Bayesian predictive strategy for an adaptive two-stage design in phase II clinical trials.
Sambucini V
Stat Med; 2010 Jun; 29(13):1430-42. PubMed ID: 20099246
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Sample size determination for a binary response in a superiority clinical trial using a hybrid classical and Bayesian procedure.
Ciarleglio MM; Arendt CD
Trials; 2017 Feb; 18(1):83. PubMed ID: 28231813
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A Bayesian-frequentist two-stage single-arm phase II clinical trial design.
Dong G; Shih WJ; Moore D; Quan H; Marcella S
Stat Med; 2012 Aug; 31(19):2055-67. PubMed ID: 22415966
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Optimal two-stage designs for single-arm phase II oncology trials with two binary endpoints.
Kunz CU; Kieser M
Methods Inf Med; 2011; 50(4):372-7. PubMed ID: 21057719
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Some thoughts on sample size: a Bayesian-frequentist hybrid approach.
Gordon Lan KK; Wittes JT
Clin Trials; 2012 Oct; 9(5):561-9. PubMed ID: 22865839
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparison of single-arm vs. randomized phase II clinical trials: a Bayesian approach.
Sambucini V
J Biopharm Stat; 2015; 25(3):474-89. PubMed ID: 24896838
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Optimal adaptive single-arm phase II trials under quantified uncertainty.
Kunzmann K; Kieser M
J Biopharm Stat; 2020; 30(1):89-103. PubMed ID: 31023135
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Continuous endpoints in Bayesian two-stage designs.
Brutti P; De Santis F; Gubbiotti S; Sambucini V
J Biopharm Stat; 2016; 26(5):966-77. PubMed ID: 26892274
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. BOP2: Bayesian optimal design for phase II clinical trials with simple and complex endpoints.
Zhou H; Lee JJ; Yuan Y
Stat Med; 2017 Sep; 36(21):3302-3314. PubMed ID: 28589563
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A Bayesian adaptive phase I-II trial design for optimizing the schedule of therapeutic cancer vaccines.
Cunanan KM; Koopmeiners JS
Stat Med; 2017 Jan; 36(1):43-53. PubMed ID: 27545299
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Bayesian design of single-arm phase II clinical trials with continuous monitoring.
Johnson VE; Cook JD
Clin Trials; 2009 Jun; 6(3):217-26. PubMed ID: 19528131
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of error rates in single-arm versus randomized phase II cancer clinical trials.
Tang H; Foster NR; Grothey A; Ansell SM; Goldberg RM; Sargent DJ
J Clin Oncol; 2010 Apr; 28(11):1936-41. PubMed ID: 20212253
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Adaptive two-stage designs in phase II clinical trials.
Banerjee A; Tsiatis AA
Stat Med; 2006 Oct; 25(19):3382-95. PubMed ID: 16479547
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. BASIC: A Bayesian adaptive synthetic-control design for phase II clinical trials.
Jiang L; Thall PF; Yan F; Kopetz S; Yuan Y
Clin Trials; 2023 Oct; 20(5):486-496. PubMed ID: 37313712
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Bayesian sample size calculations in phase II clinical trials using informative conjugate priors.
Mayo MS; Gajewski BJ
Control Clin Trials; 2004 Apr; 25(2):157-67. PubMed ID: 15020034
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Sample size re-estimation in Phase 2 dose-finding: Conditional power versus Bayesian predictive power.
Liu Q; Hu G; Ye B; Wang S; Wu Y
Pharm Stat; 2023 Mar; 22(2):349-364. PubMed ID: 36418025
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
