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.
88 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9061843)
1. Selecting the best dose when a monotonic dose-response relation exists. Russek-Cohen E; Simon RM Stat Med; 1994 Jan; 13(1):87-95. PubMed ID: 9061843 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Design considerations and analysis planning of a phase 2a proof of concept study in rheumatoid arthritis in the presence of possible non-monotonicity. Liu F; Walters SJ; Julious SA BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Oct; 17(1):149. PubMed ID: 28969588 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Adaptive dose-finding: Proof of concept with type I error control. Miller F Biom J; 2010 Oct; 52(5):577-89. PubMed ID: 20976691 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A Bayesian adaptive design for multi-dose, randomized, placebo-controlled phase I/II trials. Xie F; Ji Y; Tremmel L Contemp Clin Trials; 2012 Jul; 33(4):739-48. PubMed ID: 22426247 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A Bayesian adaptive dose selection procedure with an overdispersed count endpoint. Pozzi L; Schmidli H; Gasparini M; Racine-Poon A Stat Med; 2013 Dec; 32(28):5008-27. PubMed ID: 24022748 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Use of predictive probabilities in phase II and phase III clinical trials. Johns D; Andersen JS J Biopharm Stat; 1999 Mar; 9(1):67-79. PubMed ID: 10091910 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Two-stage designs for dose-finding trials with a biologic endpoint using stepwise tests. Polley MY; Cheung YK Biometrics; 2008 Mar; 64(1):232-41. PubMed ID: 17573866 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A comparison of several methods to test for the existence of a monotonic dose-response relationship in clinical and epidemiological studies. Leuraud K; Benichou J Stat Med; 2001 Nov; 20(22):3335-51. PubMed ID: 11746322 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The study of candidate genes in drug trials: sample size considerations. Elston RC; Idury RM; Cardon LR; Lichter JB Stat Med; 1999 Mar; 18(6):741-51. PubMed ID: 10204201 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. On the choice of doses for phase III clinical trials. Lisovskaja V; Burman CF Stat Med; 2013 May; 32(10):1661-76. PubMed ID: 23023767 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Design and analysis of dose-finding studies combining multiple comparisons and modeling procedures. Pinheiro J; Bornkamp B; Bretz F J Biopharm Stat; 2006; 16(5):639-56. PubMed ID: 17037263 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Using the partitioning principle to adaptively design dose-response studies. Ling X; Hsu J J Biopharm Stat; 2006; 16(5):733-43. PubMed ID: 17037268 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A robust two-stage design identifying the optimal biological dose for phase I/II clinical trials. Zang Y; Lee JJ Stat Med; 2017 Jan; 36(1):27-42. PubMed ID: 27538818 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. An alternative phase II/III design for continuous endpoints. Huang WS; Liu JP; Hsiao CF Pharm Stat; 2011; 10(2):105-14. PubMed ID: 20186724 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Influence of confounding factors on designs for dose-effect relationship estimates. Girard P; Laporte-Simitsidis S; Mismetti P; Decousus H; Boissel JP Stat Med; 1995 May 15-30; 14(9-10):987-1005; discussion 1007-8. PubMed ID: 7569515 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Optimal adaptive design in clinical drug development: a simulation example. Maloney A; Karlsson MO; Simonsson US J Clin Pharmacol; 2007 Oct; 47(10):1231-43. PubMed ID: 17906158 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Non-parametric estimators of a monotonic dose-response curve and bootstrap confidence intervals. Dilleen M; Heimann G; Hirsch I Stat Med; 2003 Mar; 22(6):869-82. PubMed ID: 12627406 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Optimal design of clinical trials with biologics using dose-time-response models. Lange MR; Schmidli H Stat Med; 2014 Dec; 33(30):5249-64. PubMed ID: 25209423 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Practical guidelines for adaptive seamless phase II/III clinical trials that use Bayesian methods. Kimani PK; Glimm E; Maurer W; Hutton JL; Stallard N Stat Med; 2012 Aug; 31(19):2068-85. PubMed ID: 22437262 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A Bayesian evaluation of enrolling additional patients at the maximum tolerated dose in Phase I trials. Gönen M Contemp Clin Trials; 2005 Apr; 26(2):131-40. PubMed ID: 15837436 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]