127 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38417455)
21. Time-to-first-event versus recurrent-event analysis: points to consider for selecting a meaningful analysis strategy in clinical trials with composite endpoints.
Rauch G; Kieser M; Binder H; Bayes-Genis A; Jahn-Eimermacher A
Clin Res Cardiol; 2018 May; 107(5):437-443. PubMed ID: 29453594
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. A win ratio approach to comparing continuous non-normal outcomes in clinical trials.
Wang D; Pocock S
Pharm Stat; 2016 May; 15(3):238-45. PubMed ID: 26970432
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. A weighted combined effect measure for the analysis of a composite time-to-first-event endpoint with components of different clinical relevance.
Rauch G; Kunzmann K; Kieser M; Wegscheider K; König J; Eulenburg C
Stat Med; 2018 Feb; 37(5):749-767. PubMed ID: 29205425
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Sample size formula for a win ratio endpoint.
Yu RX; Ganju J
Stat Med; 2022 Mar; 41(6):950-963. PubMed ID: 35084052
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Applying novel methods to assess clinical outcomes: insights from the TRILOGY ACS trial.
Bakal JA; Roe MT; Ohman EM; Goodman SG; Fox KA; Zheng Y; Westerhout CM; Hochman JS; Lokhnygina Y; Brown EB; Armstrong PW
Eur Heart J; 2015 Feb; 36(6):385-92a. PubMed ID: 25012156
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Sacubitril/valsartan versus ramipril for patients with acute myocardial infarction: win-ratio analysis of the PARADISE-MI trial.
Berwanger O; Pfeffer M; Claggett B; Jering KS; Maggioni AP; Steg PG; Mehran R; Lewis EF; Zhou Y; van der Meer P; De Pasquale C; Merkely B; Filippatos G; McMurray JJV; Granger CB; Solomon SD; Braunwald E
Eur J Heart Fail; 2022 Oct; 24(10):1918-1927. PubMed ID: 36054480
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Impact of weighted composite compared to traditional composite endpoints for the design of randomized controlled trials.
Bakal JA; Westerhout CM; Armstrong PW
Stat Methods Med Res; 2015 Dec; 24(6):980-8. PubMed ID: 22275378
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Adjusting win statistics for dependent censoring.
Dong G; Huang B; Wang D; Verbeeck J; Wang J; Hoaglin DC
Pharm Stat; 2021 May; 20(3):440-450. PubMed ID: 33247544
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Generalized Pairwise Comparisons to Assess Treatment Effects: JACC Review Topic of the Week.
Verbeeck J; De Backer M; Verwerft J; Salvaggio S; Valgimigli M; Vranckx P; Buyse M; Brunner E
J Am Coll Cardiol; 2023 Sep; 82(13):1360-1372. PubMed ID: 37730293
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Investigations of methods for multiple time-to-event endpoints: A chronic myeloid leukemia data analysis.
Wu H; Hou Y; Chen Z
J Eval Clin Pract; 2023 Feb; 29(1):211-217. PubMed ID: 35945813
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. A class of proportional win-fractions regression models for composite outcomes.
Mao L; Wang T
Biometrics; 2021 Dec; 77(4):1265-1275. PubMed ID: 32974905
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Applying the win ratio method in clinical trials of orphan drugs: an analysis of data from the COMET trial of avalglucosidase alfa in patients with late-onset Pompe disease.
Boentert M; Berger KI; Díaz-Manera J; Dimachkie MM; Hamed A; Riou França L; Thibault N; Shukla P; Ishak J; Caro JJ
Orphanet J Rare Dis; 2024 Jan; 19(1):14. PubMed ID: 38216959
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Use of the Win Ratio in Cardiovascular Trials.
Ferreira JP; Jhund PS; Duarte K; Claggett BL; Solomon SD; Pocock S; Petrie MC; Zannad F; McMurray JJV
JACC Heart Fail; 2020 Jun; 8(6):441-450. PubMed ID: 32466836
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Win statistics (win ratio, win odds, and net benefit) can complement one another to show the strength of the treatment effect on time-to-event outcomes.
Dong G; Huang B; Verbeeck J; Cui Y; Song J; Gamalo-Siebers M; Wang D; Hoaglin DC; Seifu Y; Mütze T; Kolassa J
Pharm Stat; 2023 Jan; 22(1):20-33. PubMed ID: 35757986
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Win Statistics in Observational Cancer Research: Integrating Clinical and Quality-of-Life Outcomes.
Chiaruttini MV; Lorenzoni G; Spolverato G; Gregori D
J Clin Med; 2024 May; 13(11):. PubMed ID: 38892983
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. The use of the win odds in the design of non-inferiority clinical trials.
Peng L
J Biopharm Stat; 2020 Sep; 30(5):941-946. PubMed ID: 32475213
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Statistical methods for composite endpoints.
Hara H; van Klaveren D; Kogame N; Chichareon P; Modolo R; Tomaniak M; Ono M; Kawashima H; Takahashi K; Capodanno D; Onuma Y; Serruys PW
EuroIntervention; 2021 Apr; 16(18):e1484-e1495. PubMed ID: 32338610
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Properties of composite time to first event versus joint marginal analyses of multiple outcomes.
Bebu I; Lachin JM
Stat Med; 2018 Nov; 37(27):3918-3930. PubMed ID: 29956365
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Evaluation of inferential methods for the net benefit and win ratio statistics.
Verbeeck J; Ozenne B; Anderson WN
J Biopharm Stat; 2020 Sep; 30(5):765-782. PubMed ID: 32097079
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Weighted composite time to event endpoints with recurrent events: comparison of three analytical approaches.
Ozga AK; Rauch G
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2022 Feb; 22(1):38. PubMed ID: 35123397
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
