Literature DB >> 7142364

Sample size requirements for comparing time-to-failure among k treatment groups.

R W Makuch, R M Simon.   

Abstract

Clinical trials are commonly undertaken to compare three or more treatment groups. In this paper sample size requirements are provided for the k group comparative clinical trial in which time-to-failure is the measure of treatment efficacy. Time-to-failure is assumed to have an exponential distribution and so these results generalize those of George and Desu. When the alternative hypothesis specifies only the magnitude of the largest difference among the treatment groups, a particularly simple expression is obtained. It is shown that heuristic use of sample size formulae or tables for comparing two treatment groups is not adequate for obtaining sufficient power and properly accounting for the multiple comparisons possible with k greater than or equal to 3 treatment groups.

Mesh:

Year:  1982        PMID: 7142364     DOI: 10.1016/0021-9681(82)90051-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Chronic Dis        ISSN: 0021-9681


  8 in total

1.  Sample size calculation for rank tests comparing K survival distributions.

Authors:  Sin-Ho Jung; Siu Hui
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 1.588

2.  Galantamine: a cholinergic patch in the treatment of alcoholism: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

Authors:  K Mann; K Ackermann; A Diehl; D Ebert; G Mundle; H Nakovics; T Reker; G Richter; L G Schmidt; M Driessen; K Rettig; K Opitz; B Croissant
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2005-12-03       Impact factor: 4.530

3.  Sample Size Requirements and Study Duration for Testing Main Effects and Interactions in Completely Randomized Factorial Designs When Time to Event is the Outcome.

Authors:  Barry Kurt Moser; Susan Halabi
Journal:  Commun Stat Theory Methods       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 0.893

4.  Sequential vs. concurrent chemoradiation for stage III non-small cell lung cancer: randomized phase III trial RTOG 9410.

Authors:  Walter J Curran; Rebecca Paulus; Corey J Langer; Ritsuko Komaki; Jin S Lee; Stephen Hauser; Benjamin Movsas; Todd Wasserman; Seth A Rosenthal; Elizabeth Gore; Mitchell Machtay; William Sause; James D Cox
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2011-09-08       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and Fluorouracil versus dose-dense epirubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by Paclitaxel versus Doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by Paclitaxel in node-positive or high-risk node-negative breast cancer.

Authors:  Margot Burnell; Mark N Levine; Judith-Anne W Chapman; Vivien Bramwell; Karen Gelmon; Barbara Walley; Ted Vandenberg; Haji Chalchal; Kathy S Albain; Edith A Perez; Hope Rugo; Kathleen Pritchard; Patti O'Brien; Lois E Shepherd
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-11-09       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  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.

Authors:  John M Lachin
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-05-13       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  Referral and survival of patients accepted by a terminal care support team.

Authors:  C Evans; M McCarthy
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1984-12       Impact factor: 3.710

8.  Randomised controlled trial comparing single agent paclitaxel vs epidoxorubicin plus paclitaxel in patients with advanced ovarian cancer in early progression after platinum-based chemotherapy: an Italian Collaborative Study from the Mario Negri Institute, Milan, G.O.N.O. (Gruppo Oncologico Nord Ovest) group and I.O.R. (Istituto Oncologico Romagnolo) group.

Authors:  A Buda; I Floriani; R Rossi; N Colombo; V Torri; P F Conte; R Fossati; A Ravaioli; C Mangioni
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2004-06-01       Impact factor: 7.640

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.