127 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38417455)
41. Sample size formula for general win ratio analysis.
Mao L; Kim K; Miao X
Biometrics; 2022 Sep; 78(3):1257-1268. PubMed ID: 34047366
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Robust statistical inference for matched win statistics.
Matsouaka RA
Stat Methods Med Res; 2022 Aug; 31(8):1423-1438. PubMed ID: 35578578
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. An alternative approach to confidence interval estimation for the win ratio statistic.
Luo X; Tian H; Mohanty S; Tsai WY
Biometrics; 2015 Mar; 71(1):139-145. PubMed ID: 25156540
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Easily applicable multiple testing procedures to improve the interpretation of clinical trials with composite endpoints.
Schüler S; Mucha A; Doherty P; Kieser M; Rauch G
Int J Cardiol; 2014 Jul; 175(1):126-32. PubMed ID: 24861257
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Weighted win loss approach for analyzing prioritized outcomes.
Luo X; Qiu J; Bai S; Tian H
Stat Med; 2017 Jul; 36(15):2452-2465. PubMed ID: 28343373
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Methodologies for pragmatic and efficient assessment of benefits and harms: Application to the SOCRATES trial.
Evans SR; Knutsson M; Amarenco P; Albers GW; Bath PM; Denison H; Ladenvall P; Jonasson J; Easton JD; Minematsu K; Molina CA; Wang Y; Wong KL; Johnston SC
Clin Trials; 2020 Dec; 17(6):617-626. PubMed ID: 32666831
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Selection of composite binary endpoints in clinical trials.
Bofill Roig M; Gómez Melis G
Biom J; 2018 Mar; 60(2):246-261. PubMed ID: 29023990
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Adaptive clinical trial designs with blinded selection of binary composite endpoints and sample size reassessment.
Roig MB; Melis GG; Posch M; Koenig F
Biostatistics; 2023 Dec; 25(1):237-252. PubMed ID: 36150142
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Design and Analysis of Studies Based on Hierarchical Composite Endpoints: Insights from the DARE-19 Trial.
Gasparyan SB; Buenconsejo J; Kowalewski EK; Oscarsson J; Bengtsson OF; Esterline R; Koch GG; Berwanger O; Kosiborod MN
Ther Innov Regul Sci; 2022 Sep; 56(5):785-794. PubMed ID: 35699910
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Multitype Events and the Analysis of Heart Failure Readmissions: Illustration of a New Modeling Approach and Comparison With Familiar Composite End Points.
Brown PM; Ezekowitz JA
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes; 2017 Jun; 10(6):. PubMed ID: 28630372
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Testing the efficacy and safety of BIO101, for the prevention of respiratory deterioration, in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia (COVA study): a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.
Dioh W; Chabane M; Tourette C; Azbekyan A; Morelot-Panzini C; Hajjar LA; Lins M; Nair GB; Whitehouse T; Mariani J; Latil M; Camelo S; Lafont R; Dilda PJ; Veillet S; Agus S
Trials; 2021 Jan; 22(1):42. PubMed ID: 33430924
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. A win ratio approach for comparing crossing survival curves in clinical trials.
Zheng S; Wang D; Qiu J; Chen T; Gamalo M
J Biopharm Stat; 2023 Jul; 33(4):488-501. PubMed ID: 36749067
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Bayesian design and analysis of composite endpoints in clinical trials with multiple dependent binary outcomes.
Zaslavsky BG
Pharm Stat; 2013; 12(4):207-12. PubMed ID: 23625660
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. Computing Methods for Composite Clinical Endpoints in Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Post Hoc Analysis of the DELTA Registry.
Capodanno D; Gargiulo G; Buccheri S; Chieffo A; Meliga E; Latib A; Park SJ; Onuma Y; Capranzano P; Valgimigli M; Narbute I; Makkar RR; Palacios IF; Kim YH; Buszman PE; Chakravarty T; Sheiban I; Mehran R; Naber C; Margey R; Agnihotri A; Marra S; Leon MB; Moses JW; Fajadet J; Lefèvre T; Morice MC; Erglis A; Alfieri O; Serruys PW; Colombo A; Tamburino C;
JACC Cardiovasc Interv; 2016 Nov; 9(22):2280-2288. PubMed ID: 27884354
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Event-specific win ratios for inference with terminal and non-terminal events.
Yang S; Troendle J; Pak D; Leifer E
Stat Med; 2022 Mar; 41(7):1225-1241. PubMed ID: 34816472
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Fallacies of Using the Win Ratio in Cardiovascular Trials: Challenges and Solutions.
Ajufo E; Nayak A; Mehra MR
JACC Basic Transl Sci; 2023 Jun; 8(6):720-727. PubMed ID: 37426527
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Use of composite outcomes to assess risk-benefit in clinical trials.
Shaw PA
Clin Trials; 2018 Aug; 15(4):352-358. PubMed ID: 30021496
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Weighted analysis of composite endpoints with simultaneous inference for flexible weight constraints.
Duc AN; Wolbers M
Stat Med; 2017 Feb; 36(3):442-454. PubMed ID: 27782312
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Evidence synthesis analysis with prioritized benefit outcomes in oncology clinical trials.
Cui Y; Dong G; Kuan PF; Huang B
J Biopharm Stat; 2023 May; 33(3):272-288. PubMed ID: 36343174
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. 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]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
