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 *

200 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30637797)

  • 21. A consistency-adjusted strategy for accommodating an underpowered primary endpoint.
    Huque MF; Alosh M
    J Biopharm Stat; 2012; 22(1):160-79. PubMed ID: 22204533
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Bayesian design of biosimilars clinical programs involving multiple therapeutic indications.
    Psioda MA; Hu K; Zhang Y; Pan J; Ibrahim JG
    Biometrics; 2020 Jun; 76(2):630-642. PubMed ID: 31631321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. Statistical tests based on new composite hypotheses in clinical trials reflecting the relative clinical importance of multiple endpoints quantitatively.
    Nishikawa M; Tango T; Ohtaki M
    Biom J; 2009 Oct; 51(5):749-62. PubMed ID: 19777463
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Improving the information content of categorical clinical trial endpoints.
    Berger VW
    Control Clin Trials; 2002 Oct; 23(5):502-14. PubMed ID: 12392864
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. Sample size estimation using a latent variable model for mixed outcome co-primary, multiple primary and composite endpoints.
    McMenamin ME; Barrett JK; Berglind A; Wason JMS
    Stat Med; 2022 Jun; 41(13):2303-2316. PubMed ID: 35199380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Use of composite endpoints in clinical trials.
    Sankoh AJ; Li H; D'Agostino RB
    Stat Med; 2014 Nov; 33(27):4709-14. PubMed ID: 24833282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Consistency-ensured parametric tests for critical events of composite endpoints.
    Huque MF; Alosh M; Guerra M
    J Biopharm Stat; 2018; 28(1):82-98. PubMed ID: 29144871
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Sample size determination for equivalence assessment with multiple endpoints.
    Sun A; Dong X; Tsong Y
    J Biopharm Stat; 2014; 24(6):1203-14. PubMed ID: 25032845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Novel procedures for validating surrogate endpoints in clinical trials.
    Cleophas TJ; Zwinderman AH; Chaib AH
    Curr Clin Pharmacol; 2007 May; 2(2):123-8. PubMed ID: 18690859
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. Sizing clinical trials when comparing bivariate time-to-event outcomes.
    Sugimoto T; Hamasaki T; Evans SR; Sozu T
    Stat Med; 2017 Apr; 36(9):1363-1382. PubMed ID: 28120524
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Improving the analysis of composite endpoints in rare disease trials.
    McMenamin M; Berglind A; Wason JMS
    Orphanet J Rare Dis; 2018 May; 13(1):81. PubMed ID: 29788976
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. Efficient estimation of the distribution of time to composite endpoint when some endpoints are only partially observed.
    Daniel RM; Tsiatis AA
    Lifetime Data Anal; 2013 Oct; 19(4):513-46. PubMed ID: 23722304
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Multiplicity Adjustment and Sample Size Calculation in Clinical Trials with Multiple Endpoints: An Industry Survey of Current Practices in Japan.
    Sakamaki K; Morita Y; Iba K; Kamiura T; Yoshida S; Ogawa N; Suganami H; Tsuchiya S; Fukimbara S
    Ther Innov Regul Sci; 2020 Sep; 54(5):1097-1105. PubMed ID: 32030692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Challenge of multiple co-primary endpoints: a new approach.
    Chuang-Stein C; Stryszak P; Dmitrienko A; Offen W
    Stat Med; 2007 Mar; 26(6):1181-92. PubMed ID: 16927251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Post hoc analyses: after the facts.
    Srinivas TR; Ho B; Kang J; Kaplan B
    Transplantation; 2015 Jan; 99(1):17-20. PubMed ID: 25525920
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. A note on one-sided tests with multiple endpoints.
    Perlman MD; Wu L
    Biometrics; 2004 Mar; 60(1):276-9; discussion 279-80. PubMed ID: 15032799
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.