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.
23. Undue reliance on I(2) in assessing heterogeneity may mislead. Rücker G; Schwarzer G; Carpenter JR; Schumacher M BMC Med Res Methodol; 2008 Nov; 8():79. PubMed ID: 19036172 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Is Propensity Score Analysis a Valid Surrogate of Randomization for the Avoidance of Allocation Bias? Torres F; Ríos J; Saez-Peñataro J; Pontes C Semin Liver Dis; 2017 Aug; 37(3):275-286. PubMed ID: 28847037 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. Alternatives to Randomised Controlled Trials for the Poor, the Impatient, and When Evaluating Emerging Technologies. Mani K; Björck M Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg; 2019 Apr; 57(4):598-599. PubMed ID: 30509892 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. Statistics commentary series: Commentary #5--can it work or does it work? The difference between efficacy and effectiveness trials. Streiner DL J Clin Psychopharmacol; 2014 Dec; 34(6):672-4. PubMed ID: 25275674 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. Putting the record straight: granisetron's efficacy as an antiemetic 'post-Fujii'. Kranke P Anaesthesia; 2012 Oct; 67(10):1063-7. PubMed ID: 22897144 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. Sample size calculation and blinded recalculation for analysis of covariance models with multiple random covariates. Zimmermann G; Kieser M; Bathke AC J Biopharm Stat; 2020; 30(1):143-159. PubMed ID: 31327284 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. The value of interrupted time-series experiments for community intervention research. Biglan A; Ary D; Wagenaar AC Prev Sci; 2000 Mar; 1(1):31-49. PubMed ID: 11507793 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Post hoc subgroup analysis and the truth of a clinical trial. Adams KF Am Heart J; 1998 Nov; 136(5):753-8. PubMed ID: 9812066 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. The ancient black art and transdisciplinary extent of pseudoreplication. Hurlbert SH J Comp Psychol; 2009 Nov; 123(4):434-43. PubMed ID: 19929111 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Design optimization for dose-finding trials: a review. Aouni J; Bacro JN; Toulemonde G; Colin P; Darchy L; Sebastien B J Biopharm Stat; 2020 Jul; 30(4):662-673. PubMed ID: 32183578 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Learning From Major Clinical Trials: Bending Without Breaking. Pfeffer MA Circulation; 2017 Dec; 136(23):2207-2209. PubMed ID: 29203564 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. [How may practitioners interpret the results of clinical trials?]. Azorin JM; Adida M; Blin O; Simon N; Fakra E; Cermolacce M; Bottai T; Pringuey D; Micoulaud-Franchi JA; Belzeaux R; Kaladjian A Encephale; 2016 Dec; 42(6S):S26-S29. PubMed ID: 28236989 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Getting maximum information out of a continuous outcome: applying linear regression. de Ridder MA; de Vries T; Arends LR EuroIntervention; 2015 Oct; 11(6):718-22. PubMed ID: 26499224 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. On adaptive error spending approach for group sequential trials with random information levels. Liu Q; Lim P; Nuamah I; Li Y J Biopharm Stat; 2012; 22(4):687-99. PubMed ID: 22651109 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. The Fox guarding the clinical trial: internal vs. external validity in randomized studies. Goodwin PJ; Pritchard KI; Spiegel D Psychooncology; 1999; 8(3):275. PubMed ID: 10390742 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]