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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

436 related items for PubMed ID: 26869168

  • 1. Augmenting the logrank test in the design of clinical trials in which non-proportional hazards of the treatment effect may be anticipated.
    Royston P, Parmar MK.
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2016 Feb 11; 16():16. PubMed ID: 26869168
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. A simulation study comparing the power of nine tests of the treatment effect in randomized controlled trials with a time-to-event outcome.
    Royston P, B Parmar MK.
    Trials; 2020 Apr 06; 21(1):315. PubMed ID: 32252820
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. Are non-constant rates and non-proportional treatment effects accounted for in the design and analysis of randomised controlled trials? A review of current practice.
    Jachno K, Heritier S, Wolfe R.
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 May 16; 19(1):103. PubMed ID: 31096924
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. Designing clinical trials with (restricted) mean survival time endpoint: Practical considerations.
    Eaton A, Therneau T, Le-Rademacher J.
    Clin Trials; 2020 Jun 16; 17(3):285-294. PubMed ID: 32063031
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Combined test versus logrank/Cox test in 50 randomised trials.
    Royston P, Choodari-Oskooei B, Parmar MKB, Rogers JK.
    Trials; 2019 Mar 18; 20(1):172. PubMed ID: 30885277
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. An approach to trial design and analysis in the era of non-proportional hazards of the treatment effect.
    Royston P, Parmar MK.
    Trials; 2014 Aug 07; 15():314. PubMed ID: 25098243
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Comparison of survival distributions in clinical trials: A practical guidance.
    Chen X, Wang X, Chen K, Zheng Y, Chappell RJ, Dey J.
    Clin Trials; 2020 Oct 07; 17(5):507-521. PubMed ID: 32594788
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Sample size and power for a logrank test and Cox proportional hazards model with multiple groups and strata, or a quantitative covariate with multiple strata.
    Lachin JM.
    Stat Med; 2013 Nov 10; 32(25):4413-25. PubMed ID: 23670965
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Restricted mean survival time: an alternative to the hazard ratio for the design and analysis of randomized trials with a time-to-event outcome.
    Royston P, Parmar MK.
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2013 Dec 07; 13():152. PubMed ID: 24314264
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. Sample size calculation for the augmented logrank test in randomized clinical trials.
    Hattori S, Komukai S, Friede T.
    Stat Med; 2022 Jun 30; 41(14):2627-2644. PubMed ID: 35319100
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. A unified approach to power and sample size determination for log-rank tests under proportional and nonproportional hazards.
    Tang Y.
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2021 May 30; 30(5):1211-1234. PubMed ID: 33819109
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Comparison between asymptotic and re-randomisation tests under non-proportional hazards in a randomised controlled trial using the minimisation method.
    Kimura R, Nomura S, Nagashima K, Sato Y.
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2024 Jul 30; 24(1):166. PubMed ID: 39080523
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. The type I error and power of non-parametric logrank and Wilcoxon tests with adjustment for covariates--a simulation study.
    Jiang H, Symanowski J, Paul S, Qu Y, Zagar A, Hong S.
    Stat Med; 2008 Dec 10; 27(28):5850-60. PubMed ID: 18759373
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. A clinical trial design using the concept of proportional time using the generalized gamma ratio distribution.
    Phadnis MA, Wetmore JB, Mayo MS.
    Stat Med; 2017 Nov 20; 36(26):4121-4140. PubMed ID: 28815655
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. A new modeling and inference approach for the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial outcomes.
    Yang S, Ambrosius WT, Fine LJ, Bress AP, Cushman WC, Raj DS, Rehman S, Tamariz L.
    Clin Trials; 2018 Jun 20; 15(3):305-312. PubMed ID: 29671345
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Design of non-inferiority randomized trials using the difference in restricted mean survival times.
    Weir IR, Trinquart L.
    Clin Trials; 2018 Oct 20; 15(5):499-508. PubMed ID: 30074407
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. A comparison of different population-level summary measures for randomised trials with time-to-event outcomes, with a focus on non-inferiority trials.
    Quartagno M, Morris TP, Gilbert DC, Langley RE, Nankivell MG, Parmar MK, White IR.
    Clin Trials; 2023 Dec 20; 20(6):594-602. PubMed ID: 37337728
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Empirical power comparison of statistical tests in contemporary phase III randomized controlled trials with time-to-event outcomes in oncology.
    Horiguchi M, Hassett MJ, Uno H.
    Clin Trials; 2020 Dec 20; 17(6):597-606. PubMed ID: 32933339
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. A combined test for a generalized treatment effect in clinical trials with a time-to-event outcome.
    Royston P.
    Stata J; 2017 Apr 20; 17(2):405-421. PubMed ID: 29445320
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Are restricted mean survival time methods especially useful for noninferiority trials?
    Freidlin B, Hu C, Korn EL.
    Clin Trials; 2021 Apr 20; 18(2):188-196. PubMed ID: 33626896
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 22.