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 *

195 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34454428)

  • 1. Impact of a non-constant baseline hazard on detection of time-dependent treatment effects: a simulation study.
    Jachno K; Heritier S; Wolfe R
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 Aug; 21(1):177. PubMed ID: 34454428
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A simulation study comparing the power of nine tests of the treatment effect in randomized controlled trials with a time-to-event outcome.
    Royston P; B Parmar MK
    Trials; 2020 Apr; 21(1):315. PubMed ID: 32252820
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Are non-constant rates and non-proportional treatment effects accounted for in the design and analysis of randomised controlled trials? A review of current practice.
    Jachno K; Heritier S; Wolfe R
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 May; 19(1):103. PubMed ID: 31096924
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A comparison of different population-level summary measures for randomised trials with time-to-event outcomes, with a focus on non-inferiority trials.
    Quartagno M; Morris TP; Gilbert DC; Langley RE; Nankivell MG; Parmar MK; White IR
    Clin Trials; 2023 Dec; 20(6):594-602. PubMed ID: 37337728
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Augmenting the logrank test in the design of clinical trials in which non-proportional hazards of the treatment effect may be anticipated.
    Royston P; Parmar MK
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2016 Feb; 16():16. PubMed ID: 26869168
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. An approach to trial design and analysis in the era of non-proportional hazards of the treatment effect.
    Royston P; Parmar MK
    Trials; 2014 Aug; 15():314. PubMed ID: 25098243
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The Average Hazard Ratio - A Good Effect Measure for Time-to-event Endpoints when the Proportional Hazard Assumption is Violated?
    Rauch G; Brannath W; Brückner M; Kieser M
    Methods Inf Med; 2018 May; 57(3):89-100. PubMed ID: 29719915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: quantifying the risks of false-positives and false-negatives.
    Brookes ST; Whitley E; Peters TJ; Mulheran PA; Egger M; Davey Smith G
    Health Technol Assess; 2001; 5(33):1-56. PubMed ID: 11701102
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Using the geometric average hazard ratio in sample size calculation for time-to-event data with composite endpoints.
    Cortés Martínez J; Geskus RB; Kim K; Melis GG
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 May; 21(1):99. PubMed ID: 33957892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Sample size calculation for the combination test under nonproportional hazards.
    Cheng H; He J
    Biom J; 2023 Apr; 65(4):e2100403. PubMed ID: 36789566
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Delayed treatment effects, treatment switching and heterogeneous patient populations: How to design and analyze RCTs in oncology.
    Ristl R; Ballarini NM; Götte H; Schüler A; Posch M; König F
    Pharm Stat; 2021 Jan; 20(1):129-145. PubMed ID: 32830428
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Combined test versus logrank/Cox test in 50 randomised trials.
    Royston P; Choodari-Oskooei B; Parmar MKB; Rogers JK
    Trials; 2019 Mar; 20(1):172. PubMed ID: 30885277
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Sample size calculation for two-arm trials with time-to-event endpoint for nonproportional hazards using the concept of Relative Time when inference is built on comparing Weibull distributions.
    Phadnis MA; Mayo MS
    Biom J; 2021 Oct; 63(7):1406-1433. PubMed ID: 34272897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Comparison of survival distributions in clinical trials: A practical guidance.
    Chen X; Wang X; Chen K; Zheng Y; Chappell RJ; Dey J
    Clin Trials; 2020 Oct; 17(5):507-521. PubMed ID: 32594788
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Investigating non-inferiority or equivalence in time-to-event data under non-proportional hazards.
    Möllenhoff K; Tresch A
    Lifetime Data Anal; 2023 Jul; 29(3):483-507. PubMed ID: 36708450
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Critical review of oncology clinical trial design under non-proportional hazards.
    Ananthakrishnan R; Green S; Previtali A; Liu R; Li D; LaValley M
    Crit Rev Oncol Hematol; 2021 Jun; 162():103350. PubMed ID: 33989767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Design of non-inferiority randomized trials using the difference in restricted mean survival times.
    Weir IR; Trinquart L
    Clin Trials; 2018 Oct; 15(5):499-508. PubMed ID: 30074407
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparison of different parametric proportional hazards models for interval-censored data: a simulation study.
    Gong Q; Fang L
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2013 Sep; 36(1):276-83. PubMed ID: 23916917
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Restricted mean survival time: an alternative to the hazard ratio for the design and analysis of randomized trials with a time-to-event outcome.
    Royston P; Parmar MK
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2013 Dec; 13():152. PubMed ID: 24314264
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Designing clinical trials with (restricted) mean survival time endpoint: Practical considerations.
    Eaton A; Therneau T; Le-Rademacher J
    Clin Trials; 2020 Jun; 17(3):285-294. PubMed ID: 32063031
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.