126 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38417455)
1. Use of win time for ordered composite endpoints in clinical trials.
Troendle JF; Leifer ES; Yang S; Jeffries N; Kim DY; Joo J; O'Connor CM
Stat Med; 2024 May; 43(10):1920-1932. PubMed ID: 38417455
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A win ratio approach to the re-analysis of Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial.
Kotalik A; Eaton A; Lian Q; Serrano C; Connett J; Neaton JD
Clin Trials; 2019 Dec; 16(6):626-634. PubMed ID: 31389723
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The win ratio: a new approach to the analysis of composite endpoints in clinical trials based on clinical priorities.
Pocock SJ; Ariti CA; Collier TJ; Wang D
Eur Heart J; 2012 Jan; 33(2):176-82. PubMed ID: 21900289
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. The win ratio approach to analyzing composite outcomes: An application to the EVOLVE trial.
Abdalla S; Montez-Rath ME; Parfrey PS; Chertow GM
Contemp Clin Trials; 2016 May; 48():119-24. PubMed ID: 27080930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Graphing the Win Ratio and its components over time.
Finkelstein DM; Schoenfeld DA
Stat Med; 2019 Jan; 38(1):53-61. PubMed ID: 30206956
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Win ratio approach for analyzing composite time-to-event endpoint with opposite treatment effects in its components.
Liao R; Chakladar S; Gamalo M
Pharm Stat; 2022 Nov; 21(6):1342-1356. PubMed ID: 35766113
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Generalized pairwise comparison methods to analyze (non)prioritized composite endpoints.
Verbeeck J; Spitzer E; de Vries T; van Es GA; Anderson WN; Van Mieghem NM; Leon MB; Molenberghs G; Tijssen J
Stat Med; 2019 Dec; 38(30):5641-5656. PubMed ID: 31659790
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Event-specific win ratios and testing with terminal and non-terminal events.
Yang S; Troendle J
Clin Trials; 2021 Apr; 18(2):180-187. PubMed ID: 33231108
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A generalized analytic solution to the win ratio to analyze a composite endpoint considering the clinical importance order among components.
Dong G; Li D; Ballerstedt S; Vandemeulebroecke M
Pharm Stat; 2016 Sep; 15(5):430-7. PubMed ID: 27485522
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Design of paediatric trials with benefit-risk endpoints using a composite score of adverse events of interest (AEI) and win-statistics.
Seifu Y; Mt-Isa S; Duke K; Gamalo-Siebers M; Wang W; Dong G; Kolassa J
J Biopharm Stat; 2023 Nov; 33(6):696-707. PubMed ID: 36545791
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The stratified win ratio.
Dong G; Qiu J; Wang D; Vandemeulebroecke M
J Biopharm Stat; 2018; 28(4):778-796. PubMed ID: 29172988
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The win ratio approach for composite endpoints: practical guidance based on previous experience.
Redfors B; Gregson J; Crowley A; McAndrew T; Ben-Yehuda O; Stone GW; Pocock SJ
Eur Heart J; 2020 Dec; 41(46):4391-4399. PubMed ID: 32901285
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. On recurrent-event win ratio.
Mao L; Kim K; Li Y
Stat Methods Med Res; 2022 Jun; 31(6):1120-1134. PubMed ID: 35345957
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Large sample inference for a win ratio analysis of a composite outcome based on prioritized components.
Bebu I; Lachin JM
Biostatistics; 2016 Jan; 17(1):178-87. PubMed ID: 26353896
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The win ratio approach did not alter study conclusions and may mitigate concerns regarding unequal composite end points in kidney transplant trials.
Fergusson NA; Ramsay T; Chassé M; English SW; Knoll GA
J Clin Epidemiol; 2018 Jun; 98():9-15. PubMed ID: 29428872
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The win ratio: Impact of censoring and follow-up time and use with nonproportional hazards.
Dong G; Huang B; Chang YW; Seifu Y; Song J; Hoaglin DC
Pharm Stat; 2020 May; 19(3):168-177. PubMed ID: 31671481
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Hierarchical testing of composite endpoints: applying the win ratio to percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in the SYNTAX trial.
Milojevic M; Head SJ; Andrinopoulou ER; Serruys PW; Mohr FW; Tijssen JG; Kappetein AP
EuroIntervention; 2017 May; 13(1):106-114. PubMed ID: 28134125
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The win odds: statistical inference and regression.
Song J; Verbeeck J; Huang B; Hoaglin DC; Gamalo-Siebers M; Seifu Y; Wang D; Cooner F; Dong G
J Biopharm Stat; 2023 Mar; 33(2):140-150. PubMed ID: 35946932
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The maraca plot: A novel visualization of hierarchical composite endpoints.
Karpefors M; Lindholm D; Gasparyan SB
Clin Trials; 2023 Feb; 20(1):84-88. PubMed ID: 36373800
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
