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 *

155 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31311500)

  • 41. Sample size re-estimation for survival data in clinical trials with an adaptive design.
    Togo K; Iwasaki M
    Pharm Stat; 2011; 10(4):325-31. PubMed ID: 22328325
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Within-center matching performed better when using propensity score matching to analyze multicenter survival data: empirical and Monte Carlo studies.
    Gayat E; Thabut G; Christie JD; Mebazaa A; Mary JY; Porcher R
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2013 Sep; 66(9):1029-37. PubMed ID: 23800533
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Using balance statistics to determine the optimal number of controls in matching studies.
    Linden A; Samuels SJ
    J Eval Clin Pract; 2013 Oct; 19(5):968-75. PubMed ID: 23910956
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Two-stage designs for cross-over bioequivalence trials.
    Kieser M; Rauch G
    Stat Med; 2015 Jul; 34(16):2403-16. PubMed ID: 25809815
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Information-based sample size re-estimation in group sequential design for longitudinal trials.
    Zhou J; Adewale A; Shentu Y; Liu J; Anderson K
    Stat Med; 2014 Sep; 33(22):3801-14. PubMed ID: 24797715
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Propensity score matched augmented controls in randomized clinical trials: A case study.
    Lin J; Gamalo-Siebers M; Tiwari R
    Pharm Stat; 2018 Sep; 17(5):629-647. PubMed ID: 30066459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Conditional power and friends: The why and how of (un)planned, unblinded sample size recalculations in confirmatory trials.
    Kunzmann K; Grayling MJ; Lee KM; Robertson DS; Rufibach K; Wason JMS
    Stat Med; 2022 Feb; 41(5):877-890. PubMed ID: 35023184
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Sample size adjustment designs with time-to-event outcomes: A caution.
    Freidlin B; Korn EL
    Clin Trials; 2017 Dec; 14(6):597-604. PubMed ID: 28795844
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Increasing the sample size when the unblinded interim result is promising.
    Chen YH; DeMets DL; Lan KK
    Stat Med; 2004 Apr; 23(7):1023-38. PubMed ID: 15057876
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Estimating the effect of treatment on binary outcomes using full matching on the propensity score.
    Austin PC; Stuart EA
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2017 Dec; 26(6):2505-2525. PubMed ID: 26329750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. The Stroke Hyperglycemia Insulin Network Effort (SHINE) trial: an adaptive trial design case study.
    Connor JT; Broglio KR; Durkalski V; Meurer WJ; Johnston KC
    Trials; 2015 Mar; 16():72. PubMed ID: 25885963
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Comparing methods for estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects using observational data from health care databases.
    Wendling T; Jung K; Callahan A; Schuler A; Shah NH; Gallego B
    Stat Med; 2018 Oct; 37(23):3309-3324. PubMed ID: 29862536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Using Cardinality Matching to Design Balanced and Representative Samples for Observational Studies.
    Niknam BA; Zubizarreta JR
    JAMA; 2022 Jan; 327(2):173-174. PubMed ID: 35015049
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. A new weighted balance measure helped to select the variables to be included in a propensity score model.
    Caruana E; Chevret S; Resche-Rigon M; Pirracchio R
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 Dec; 68(12):1415-22.e2. PubMed ID: 26050059
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Directional penalties for optimal matching in observational studies.
    Yu R; Rosenbaum PR
    Biometrics; 2019 Dec; 75(4):1380-1390. PubMed ID: 31144766
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Propensity Score Methods for Analyzing Observational Data Like Randomized Experiments: Challenges and Solutions for Rare Outcomes and Exposures.
    Ross ME; Kreider AR; Huang YS; Matone M; Rubin DM; Localio AR
    Am J Epidemiol; 2015 Jun; 181(12):989-95. PubMed ID: 25995287
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. [Propensity Score Methods to Estimate Treatment Effects: An Opportunity for Rehabilitation Service Research].
    Fauser D; Bethge M
    Rehabilitation (Stuttg); 2019 Feb; 58(1):50-58. PubMed ID: 30769358
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Too much ado about propensity score models? Comparing methods of propensity score matching.
    Baser O
    Value Health; 2006; 9(6):377-85. PubMed ID: 17076868
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Do the observational studies using propensity score analysis agree with randomized controlled trials in the area of sepsis?
    Zhang Z; Ni H; Xu X
    J Crit Care; 2014 Oct; 29(5):886.e9-15. PubMed ID: 24996762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Effectiveness of triple therapy with direct-acting antivirals for hepatitis C genotype 1 infection: application of propensity score matching in a national HCV treatment registry.
    Gray E; Pasta DJ; Norris S; O'Leary A;
    BMC Health Serv Res; 2017 Apr; 17(1):288. PubMed ID: 28424064
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.