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.
91 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3446241)
1. Problems associated with comparisons of response-defined subsets of patients in randomized trials. Treatment-related bias and response migration. Brincker H Acta Oncol; 1987; 26(6):425-8. PubMed ID: 3446241 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Assessing treatment efficacy in the subset of responders in a randomized clinical trial. Korn EL; Othus M; Chen T; Freidlin B Ann Oncol; 2017 Jul; 28(7):1640-1647. PubMed ID: 28444115 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Interpretation of results from subset analyses within overviews of randomized clinical trials. Gelber RD; Goldhirsch A Stat Med; 1987; 6(3):371-88. PubMed ID: 3616290 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials. Kunz R; Vist G; Oxman AD Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2007 Apr; (2):MR000012. PubMed ID: 17443633 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Patient heterogeneity and the need for randomized clinical trials. Green SB Control Clin Trials; 1982 Sep; 3(3):189-98. PubMed ID: 7151437 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. On the relationship between response to treatment and survival time. Buyse M; Piedbois P Stat Med; 1996 Dec; 15(24):2797-812. PubMed ID: 8981687 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparing survival of responders and nonresponders after treatment: a potential source of confusion in interpreting cancer clinical trials. Weiss GB; Bunce H; Hokanson JA Control Clin Trials; 1983 Mar; 4(1):43-52. PubMed ID: 6851582 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A theoretical analysis showed that blinding cannot eliminate potential for bias associated with beliefs about allocation in randomized clinical trials. Mathieu E; Herbert RD; McGeechan K; Herbert JJ; Barratt AL J Clin Epidemiol; 2014 Jun; 67(6):667-71. PubMed ID: 24767518 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A Bayesian approach to the interpretation of subgroup results in clinical trials. Donner A J Chronic Dis; 1982; 35(6):429-35. PubMed ID: 7076786 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Allocation concealment in randomised trials: defending against deciphering. Schulz KF; Grimes DA Lancet; 2002 Feb; 359(9306):614-8. PubMed ID: 11867132 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Designing and analyzing clinical trials which allow institutions to randomize patients to a subset of the treatments under study. Schoenfeld DA; Gelber RD Biometrics; 1979 Dec; 35(4):825-9. PubMed ID: 526527 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials. Kunz R; Oxman AD BMJ; 1998 Oct; 317(7167):1185-90. PubMed ID: 9794851 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Screening for lung cancer. Another look; a different view. Strauss GM; Gleason RE; Sugarbaker DJ Chest; 1997 Mar; 111(3):754-68. PubMed ID: 9118717 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Analysis of duration of response in oncology trials. Ellis S; Carroll KJ; Pemberton K Contemp Clin Trials; 2008 Jul; 29(4):456-65. PubMed ID: 18187370 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A note on randomization and selection bias in maintenance therapy clinical trials. Greenhouse JB; Meyer MM Psychopharmacol Bull; 1991; 27(3):225-9. PubMed ID: 1775592 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]