Literature DB >> 11590630

Evaluation of surrogate endpoints in randomized experiments with mixed discrete and continuous outcomes.

G Molenberghs1, H Geys, M Buyse.   

Abstract

A statistical definition of surrogate endpoints as well as validation criteria was first presented by Prentice. Freedman et al. supplemented these criteria with the so-called proportion explained. Buyse and Molenberghs pointed to inadequacies of these criteria and suggested a new definition of surrogacy based on (i) the relative effect linking the overall effect of treatment on both endpoints and (ii) an individual-level measure of agreement between both endpoints. Using data from a randomized trial, they showed how a potential surrogate endpoint can be studied using a joint model for the surrogate and the true endpoint. Whereas Buyse and Molenberghs restricted themselves to the fairly simple cases of jointly normal and jointly binary outcomes, we treat the situation where the surrogate is binary and the true endpoint is continuous, or vice versa. In addition, we consider the case of ordinal endpoints. Further, Buyse et al. extended the approach of Buyse and Molenberghs to a meta-analytic context. We will adopt a similar approach for responses of a mixed data type. Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11590630     DOI: 10.1002/sim.923

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  15 in total

Review 1.  Modelling and simulation in the development and use of anti-cancer agents: an underused tool?

Authors:  Ferdinand Rombout; Leon Aarons; Mats Karlsson; Anthony Man; France Mentré; Peter Nygren; Amy Racine; Hans Schaefer; Jean-Louis Steimer; Iñaki Troconiz; Achiel van Peer
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 2.745

Review 2.  Biomarkers in oncology drug development.

Authors:  Darren R Hodgson; Robin D Whittaker; Athula Herath; Dereck Amakye; Glen Clack
Journal:  Mol Oncol       Date:  2008-12-11       Impact factor: 6.603

3.  Center-Within-Trial Versus Trial-Level Evaluation of Surrogate Endpoints.

Authors:  Lindsay A Renfro; Qian Shi; Yuan Xue; Junlong Li; Hongwei Shang; Daniel J Sargent
Journal:  Comput Stat Data Anal       Date:  2014-10-01       Impact factor: 1.681

Review 4.  The perils of surrogate endpoints.

Authors:  William S Weintraub; Thomas F Lüscher; Stuart Pocock
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2015-05-13       Impact factor: 29.983

Review 5.  Surrogate endpoints in liver surgery related trials: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Liliane Mpabanzi; Kim M C van Mierlo; Massimo Malagó; Cornelis H C Dejong; Dimitrios Lytras; Steven W M Olde Damink
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2012-10-22       Impact factor: 3.647

Review 6.  Meta-analysis for the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in cancer clinical trials.

Authors:  Qian Shi; Daniel J Sargent
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-04-24       Impact factor: 3.402

7.  Surrogacy assessment using principal stratification and a Gaussian copula model.

Authors:  Asc Conlon; Jmg Taylor; M R Elliott
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2016-07-11       Impact factor: 3.021

8.  The Atherosclerosis Risk in Young Adults (ARYA) study: rationale and design.

Authors:  A Oren; L E Vos; C S P M Uiterwaal; A A A Bak; W H W Gorissen; D E Grobbee; M L Bots
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 8.082

9.  Measuring Surrogacy in Clinical Research: With an application to studying surrogate markers for HIV Treatment-as-Prevention.

Authors:  Rui Zhuang; Ying Qing Chen
Journal:  Stat Biosci       Date:  2019-06-04

Review 10.  Creatinine Change on Vasoconstrictors as Mortality Surrogate in Hepatorenal Syndrome: Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Justin M Belcher; Steven G Coca; Chirag R Parikh
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-08-21       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.