On lumping, splitting, and the nosology of clinical trial populations and end points.

No abstract is available for this paper.

• Publication year

  2014

• Venue

  Journal of Clinical Oncology

• Publication date

  2014-04-01

• Fields of study

  Medicine

• Identifiers
  DOI 10.1200/JCO.2013.54.4429PMID 24550413
• External record

  Open on Semantic Scholar

• Source metadata

  Semantic Scholar, PubMed

• No claims are published for this paper.

• No concepts are published for this paper.

• COMPARISON OF OUTCOMES IN CANCER PATIENTS TREATED WITHIN AND OUTSIDE CLINICAL TRIALS: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND STRUCTURED VIEW

  2018cited by this paper
• On Lumpers and Splitters, or the Nosology of Genetic Disease

  2015cited by this paper
• End points and trial design in geriatric oncology research: a joint European organisation for research and treatment of cancer--Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology--International Society Of Geriatric Oncology position article.

  2013cited by this paper
• How to generalize efficacy results of randomized trials: recommendations based on a systematic review of possible approaches.

  2013cited by this paper
• Statistical considerations when using a composite endpoint for comparing treatment groups

  2013cited by this paper
• Cause-specific effects of radiotherapy and lymphadenectomy in stage I-II endometrial cancer: a population-based study.

  2013cited by this paper
• Reporting of cause-specific treatment effects in cancer clinical trials with competing risks: a systematic review.

  2012cited by this paper
• Competing event risk stratification may improve the design and efficiency of clinical trials: secondary analysis of SWOG 8794.

  2012cited by this paper
• Population-based study of competing mortality in head and neck cancer.

  2011cited by this paper
• Brief History of the Gold Standard in the United States

  2011cited by this paper
• When bad things happen to good studies.

  2011cited by this paper
• The Importance of Doing Trials Right While Doing the Right Trials

  2011cited by this paper
• Pitfalls of using composite primary end points in the presence of competing risks.

  2010cited by this paper
• Measurement error in the timing of events: effect on survival analyses in randomized clinical trials

  2010cited by this paper
• Sample size calculations in the presence of competing risks

  2007cited by this paper
• Comparison of outcomes in cancer patients treated within and outside clinical trials: conceptual framework and structured review.

  2004cited by this paper
• Composite outcomes in randomized trials: greater precision but with greater uncertainty?

  2003cited by this paper

• Nomogram to Predict the Benefit of Intensive Treatment for Locoregionally Advanced Head and Neck Cancer

  2019cites this paper
• Selection of Head and Neck Cancer Patients for Intensive Therapy.

  2019cites this paper
• Prognostic Role of p16 in Nonoropharyngeal Head and Neck Cancer

  2018cites this paper
• Generalized Competing Event Models Can Reduce Cost and Duration of Cancer Clinical Trials.

  2018cites this paper
• Specificity of Genetic Biomarker Studies in Cancer Research: A Systematic Review

  2016cites this paper
• Competing events and costs of clinical trials: Analysis of a randomized trial in prostate cancer.

  2015cites this paper
• Reply to L.K. Mell et al.

  2014cites this paper
• Cost effectiveness and cancer drugs.

  2014cites this paper