Literature DB >> 16178136

Uses and limitations of randomization-based efficacy estimators.

Ian R White1.   

Abstract

In randomized trials with departures from allocated treatment, intention-to-treat analysis is important but not always sufficient. The most common supplement to intention-to-treat analysis is per-protocol analysis, whose assumption of comparability between different nonrandomized groups is often implausible. Randomization-based methods avoid making this assumption and are preferable. Situations where intention-to-treat analysis is insufficient and a randomization-based method is useful include provision of patient information, exploration of treatment-covariate and treatment-time interactions, meta-analysis, and equivalence trials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16178136     DOI: 10.1191/0962280205sm406oa

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res        ISSN: 0962-2802            Impact factor:   3.021


  39 in total

1.  Complete longitudinal analyses of the randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III trial of sunitinib in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumor following imatinib failure.

Authors:  George D Demetri; Christopher R Garrett; Patrick Schöffski; Manisha H Shah; Jaap Verweij; Serge Leyvraz; Herbert I Hurwitz; Antonio Lopez Pousa; Axel Le Cesne; David Goldstein; Luis Paz-Ares; Jean-Yves Blay; Grant A McArthur; Qiang Casey Xu; Xin Huang; Charles S Harmon; Vanessa Tassell; Darrel P Cohen; Paolo G Casali
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2012-06-01       Impact factor: 12.531

Review 2.  How the EMERGE guideline on medication adherence can improve the quality of clinical trials.

Authors:  Lina Eliasson; Sarah Clifford; Amy Mulick; Christina Jackson; Bernard Vrijens
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2020-02-28       Impact factor: 4.335

3.  Group cognitive rehabilitation to reduce the psychological impact of multiple sclerosis on quality of life: the CRAMMS RCT.

Authors:  Nadina B Lincoln; Lucy E Bradshaw; Cris S Constantinescu; Florence Day; Avril Er Drummond; Deborah Fitzsimmons; Shaun Harris; Alan A Montgomery; Roshan das Nair
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 4.014

4.  A synthetic estimator for the efficacy of clinical trials with all-or-nothing compliance.

Authors:  Joseph Antonelli; Bing Han; Matthew Cefalu
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2017-08-18       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Booklet for Childhood Fever in Out-of-Hours Primary Care: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Eefje G P M de Bont; Geert-Jan Dinant; Gijs Elshout; Gijs van Well; Nick A Francis; Bjorn Winkens; Jochen W L Cals
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 5.166

6.  Including all individuals is not enough: lessons for intention-to-treat analysis.

Authors:  Ian R White; James Carpenter; Nicholas J Horton
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2012-07-02       Impact factor: 2.486

7.  Latent class instrumental variables: a clinical and biostatistical perspective.

Authors:  Stuart G Baker; Barnett S Kramer; Karen S Lindeman
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2015-08-04       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Methodological challenges in online trials.

Authors:  Elizabeth Murray; Zarnie Khadjesari; Ian R White; Eleftheria Kalaitzaki; Christine Godfrey; Jim McCambridge; Simon G Thompson; Paul Wallace
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2009-04-03       Impact factor: 5.428

9.  A novel method to adjust efficacy estimates for uptake of other active treatments in long-term clinical trials.

Authors:  John Simes; Merryn Voysey; Rachel O'Connell; Paul Glasziou; James D Best; Russell Scott; Christopher Pardy; Karen Byth; David R Sullivan; Christian Ehnholm; Anthony Keech
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-01-08       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Reporting non-adherence in cluster randomised trials: A systematic review.

Authors:  Schadrac C Agbla; Karla DiazOrdaz
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2018-04-02       Impact factor: 2.486

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.