Statistics in Medicine

Table of Contents

Volume 23 Issue 10 (30 May 2004)

1501-1662

Editorials

The Statistician and the Data Monitoring Committee

  • Author: Ralph B. D'Agostino
  • Pub Online: Apr 27, 2004
  • DOI: 10.1002/sim.1873 (p 1501-1502)

Research Articles

Should statisticians reporting to data monitoring committees be independent of the trial sponsor and leadership?

  • Author: Susan S. Ellenberg, Stephen L. George
  • Pub Online: Apr 27, 2004
  • DOI: 10.1002/sim.1784 (p 1503-1505)

The independent statistician for data monitoring committees

  • Author: David L. DeMets, Thomas R. Fleming
  • Pub Online: Apr 27, 2004
  • DOI: 10.1002/sim.1786 (p 1513-1517)

Conflicts of interest in data monitoring of industry versus publicly financed clinical trials

  • Author: John M. Lachin
  • Pub Online: Apr 27, 2004
  • DOI: 10.1002/sim.1787 (p 1519-1521)

Playing safe and preserving integrity: making the FDA model work

  • Author: Janet Wittes
  • Pub Online: Apr 27, 2004
  • DOI: 10.1002/sim.1788 (p 1523-1525)

Independence of the statistician who analyses unblinded data

  • Author: Jay P. Siegel, Robert T. O'Neill, Robert Temple, Gregory Campbell, Mary A. Foulkes
  • Pub Online: Apr 27, 2004
  • DOI: 10.1002/sim.1789 (p 1527-1529)

The role of the unblinded sponsor statistician

  • Author: Steven Snapinn, Thomas Cook, Deborah Shapiro, Duane Snavely
  • Pub Online: Apr 27, 2004
  • DOI: 10.1002/sim.1790 (p 1531-1533)

A major trial needs three statisticians: why, how and who?

  • Author: Stuart J. Pocock
  • Pub Online: Apr 27, 2004
  • DOI: 10.1002/sim.1791 (p 1535-1539)

Test of treatment effect in pre‐drug and post‐drug count data with zero‐inflation

  • Author: Sudhir. R. Paul, Xing Jiang, Shesh Nath Rai, Uditha Balasooriya
  • Pub Online: Apr 27, 2004
  • DOI: 10.1002/sim.1764 (p 1541-1554)

Quantifying and comparing the accuracy of binary biomarkers when predicting a failure time outcome

  • Author: Chaya S. Moskowitz, Margaret S. Pepe
  • Pub Online: Apr 27, 2004
  • DOI: 10.1002/sim.1747 (p 1555-1570)

Does the Prentice criterion validate surrogate endpoints?

  • Author: Vance W. Berger
  • Pub Online: Apr 27, 2004
  • DOI: 10.1002/sim.1780 (p 1571-1578)

Combining several ordinal measures in clinical studies

  • Author: Knut M. Wittkowski, Edmund Lee, Rachel Nussbaum, Francesca N. Chamian, James G. Krueger
  • Pub Online: Apr 27, 2004
  • DOI: 10.1002/sim.1778 (p 1579-1592)

A risk‐adjusted Sets method for monitoring adverse medical outcomes

  • Author: O. A. Grigg, V. T. Farewell
  • Pub Online: Apr 27, 2004
  • DOI: 10.1002/sim.1763 (p 1593-1602)

Methods for assessing reliability and validity for a measurement tool: a case study and critique using the WHO haemoglobin colour scale

  • Author: Sarah A. White, Nynke R. van den Broek
  • Pub Online: Apr 27, 2004
  • DOI: 10.1002/sim.1804 (p 1603-1619)
Page:   1 2 Next

Related Topics

Related Publications

Related Content

Site Footer

Address:

This website is provided by John Wiley & Sons Limited, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex PO19 8SQ (Company No: 00641132, VAT No: 376766987)

Published features on StatisticsViews.com are checked for statistical accuracy by a panel from the European Network for Business and Industrial Statistics (ENBIS)   to whom Wiley and StatisticsViews.com express their gratitude. This panel are: Ron Kenett, David Steinberg, Shirley Coleman, Irena Ograjenšek, Fabrizio Ruggeri, Rainer Göb, Philippe Castagliola, Xavier Tort-Martorell, Bart De Ketelaere, Antonio Pievatolo, Martina Vandebroek, Lance Mitchell, Gilbert Saporta, Helmut Waldl and Stelios Psarakis.