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 *

163 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30347460)

  • 1. Allowing for uncertainty due to missing and LOCF imputed outcomes in meta-analysis.
    Mavridis D; Salanti G; Furukawa TA; Cipriani A; Chaimani A; White IR
    Stat Med; 2019 Feb; 38(5):720-737. PubMed ID: 30347460
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Accounting for uncertainty due to 'last observation carried forward' outcome imputation in a meta-analysis model.
    Dimitrakopoulou V; Efthimiou O; Leucht S; Salanti G
    Stat Med; 2015 Feb; 34(5):742-52. PubMed ID: 25492741
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Allowing for uncertainty due to missing continuous outcome data in pairwise and network meta-analysis.
    Mavridis D; White IR; Higgins JP; Cipriani A; Salanti G
    Stat Med; 2015 Feb; 34(5):721-41. PubMed ID: 25393541
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation method in clinical efficacy trials: review of 352 antidepressant studies.
    Woolley SB; Cardoni AA; Goethe JW
    Pharmacotherapy; 2009 Dec; 29(12):1408-16. PubMed ID: 19947800
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Accounting for dropout bias using mixed-effects models.
    Mallinckrodt CH; Clark WS; David SR
    J Biopharm Stat; 2001; 11(1-2):9-21. PubMed ID: 11459446
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Dealing with missing outcome data in meta-analysis.
    Mavridis D; White IR
    Res Synth Methods; 2020 Jan; 11(1):2-13. PubMed ID: 30991455
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Evaluating the impact of imputations for missing participant outcome data in a network meta-analysis.
    Spineli LM; Higgins JP; Cipriani A; Leucht S; Salanti G
    Clin Trials; 2013; 10(3):378-88. PubMed ID: 23321265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Marginal analysis of incomplete longitudinal binary data: a cautionary note on LOCF imputation.
    Cook RJ; Zeng L; Yi GY
    Biometrics; 2004 Sep; 60(3):820-8. PubMed ID: 15339307
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Allowing for uncertainty due to missing data in meta-analysis--part 1: two-stage methods.
    White IR; Higgins JP; Wood AM
    Stat Med; 2008 Feb; 27(5):711-27. PubMed ID: 17703496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A systematic survey of the methods literature on the reporting quality and optimal methods of handling participants with missing outcome data for continuous outcomes in randomized controlled trials.
    Zhang Y; Alyass A; Vanniyasingam T; Sadeghirad B; Flórez ID; Pichika SC; Kennedy SA; Abdulkarimova U; Zhang Y; Iljon T; Morgano GP; Colunga Lozano LE; Aloweni FAB; Lopes LC; Yepes-Nuñez JJ; Fei Y; Wang L; Kahale LA; Meyre D; Akl EA; Thabane L; Guyatt GH
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2017 Aug; 88():67-80. PubMed ID: 28579378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Development of a practical approach to expert elicitation for randomised controlled trials with missing health outcomes: Application to the IMPROVE trial.
    Mason AJ; Gomes M; Grieve R; Ulug P; Powell JT; Carpenter J
    Clin Trials; 2017 Aug; 14(4):357-367. PubMed ID: 28675302
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Imputation methods for missing outcome data in meta-analysis of clinical trials.
    Higgins JP; White IR; Wood AM
    Clin Trials; 2008; 5(3):225-39. PubMed ID: 18559412
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A Bayesian framework to account for uncertainty due to missing binary outcome data in pairwise meta-analysis.
    Turner NL; Dias S; Ades AE; Welton NJ
    Stat Med; 2015 May; 34(12):2062-80. PubMed ID: 25809313
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Imputation strategies when a continuous outcome is to be dichotomized for responder analysis: a simulation study.
    Floden L; Bell ML
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Jul; 19(1):161. PubMed ID: 31345166
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A comparison of the random-effects pattern mixture model with last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) analysis in longitudinal clinical trials with dropouts.
    Siddiqui O; Ali MW
    J Biopharm Stat; 1998 Nov; 8(4):545-63. PubMed ID: 9855033
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparisons of methods for analysis of repeated binary responses with missing data.
    Frank Liu G; Zhan X
    J Biopharm Stat; 2011 May; 21(3):371-92. PubMed ID: 21442514
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Missing data in alcohol clinical trials: a comparison of methods.
    Hallgren KA; Witkiewitz K
    Alcohol Clin Exp Res; 2013 Dec; 37(12):2152-60. PubMed ID: 23889334
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Analysis of binary outcomes with missing data: missing = smoking, last observation carried forward, and a little multiple imputation.
    Hedeker D; Mermelstein RJ; Demirtas H
    Addiction; 2007 Oct; 102(10):1564-73. PubMed ID: 17854333
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Intent-to-treat analysis for longitudinal clinical trials: coping with the challenge of missing values.
    Mazumdar S; Liu KS; Houck PR; Reynolds CF
    J Psychiatr Res; 1999; 33(2):87-95. PubMed ID: 10221740
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Handling of Missing Outcome Data in Acute Stroke Trials: Advantages of Multiple Imputation Using Baseline and Postbaseline Variables.
    Young-Saver DF; Gornbein J; Starkman S; Saver JL
    J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis; 2018 Dec; 27(12):3662-3669. PubMed ID: 30297167
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.