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 *

133 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32450909)

  • 1. Analysis of responder-based endpoints: improving power through utilising continuous components.
    Wason J; McMenamin M; Dodd S
    Trials; 2020 May; 21(1):427. PubMed ID: 32450909
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.
    Crider K; Williams J; Qi YP; Gutman J; Yeung L; Mai C; Finkelstain J; Mehta S; Pons-Duran C; Menéndez C; Moraleda C; Rogers L; Daniels K; Green P
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2022 Feb; 2(2022):. PubMed ID: 36321557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Improving the power of clinical trials of rheumatoid arthritis by using data on continuous scales when analysing response rates: an application of the augmented binary method.
    Wason JM; Jenkins M
    Rheumatology (Oxford); 2016 Oct; 55(10):1796-802. PubMed ID: 27338084
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Increasing power in the analysis of responder endpoints in rheumatology: a software tutorial.
    McMenamin M; Grayling MJ; Berglind A; Wason JMS
    BMC Rheumatol; 2021 Dec; 5(1):54. PubMed ID: 34872620
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Adaptive clinical trial designs with blinded selection of binary composite endpoints and sample size reassessment.
    Roig MB; Melis GG; Posch M; Koenig F
    Biostatistics; 2023 Dec; 25(1):237-252. PubMed ID: 36150142
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Selection of composite binary endpoints in clinical trials.
    Bofill Roig M; Gómez Melis G
    Biom J; 2018 Mar; 60(2):246-261. PubMed ID: 29023990
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Systematic review of outcomes and endpoints in acute migraine clinical trials.
    Houts CR; McGinley JS; Nishida TK; Buse DC; Wirth RJ; Dodick DW; Goadsby PJ; Lipton RB
    Headache; 2021 Feb; 61(2):263-275. PubMed ID: 33611818
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Improving phase II oncology trials using best observed RECIST response as an endpoint by modelling continuous tumour measurements.
    Lin CJ; Wason JMS
    Stat Med; 2017 Dec; 36(29):4616-4626. PubMed ID: 28850689
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. A new approach for sizing trials with composite binary endpoints using anticipated marginal values and accounting for the correlation between components.
    Bofill Roig M; Gómez Melis G
    Stat Med; 2019 May; 38(11):1935-1956. PubMed ID: 30637797
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Sample size determination in clinical trials with multiple co-primary endpoints including mixed continuous and binary variables.
    Sozu T; Sugimoto T; Hamasaki T
    Biom J; 2012 Sep; 54(5):716-29. PubMed ID: 22829198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Multiplicity adjustment for composite binary endpoints.
    Rauch G; Kieser M
    Methods Inf Med; 2012; 51(4):309-17. PubMed ID: 22525969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Surrogate endpoints for overall survival in digestive oncology trials: which candidates? A questionnaires survey among clinicians and methodologists.
    Methy N; Bedenne L; Bonnetain F
    BMC Cancer; 2010 Jun; 10():277. PubMed ID: 20537166
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Bayesian design and analysis of composite endpoints in clinical trials with multiple dependent binary outcomes.
    Zaslavsky BG
    Pharm Stat; 2013; 12(4):207-12. PubMed ID: 23625660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The future of Cochrane Neonatal.
    Soll RF; Ovelman C; McGuire W
    Early Hum Dev; 2020 Nov; 150():105191. PubMed ID: 33036834
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Sample size determination in superiority clinical trials with multiple co-primary correlated endpoints.
    Sozu T; Sugimoto T; Hamasaki T
    J Biopharm Stat; 2011 Jul; 21(4):650-68. PubMed ID: 21516562
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Testing for qualitative heterogeneity: An application to composite endpoints in survival analysis.
    Oulhaj A; El Ghouch A; Holman RR
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2019 Jan; 28(1):151-169. PubMed ID: 28670972
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.