Resolving paradoxes involving surrogate end points

Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A: Statistics in Society

Volumn 168, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 753-762

  Baker, Stuart G ^a   Izmirlian, Grant ^a   Kipnis, Victor ^a  

^a NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Prentice criterion

Indexed keywords

EID: 26844544498     PISSN: 09641998     EISSN: 1467985X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-985X.2005.00373.x     Document Type: Article

References (8)

1. Baker, S. G. and Kramer, B. S. (2003) A perfect correlate does not a surrogate make. BMC Med. Res. Methodol., 3, 16.
2. Begg, C. B. and Leung, D. H. Y. (2000) On the use of surrogate end points in randomized trials (with comments). J. R. Statist. Soc. A, 163, 15-28.
3. Buyse, M., Molenberghs, G., Burzykowski, T., Renard, D. and Geys, H. (2000) The validation of surrogate endpoints in meta-analyses of randomized trials. Biostatistics, 1, 49-67.
4. Day, N. E. and Duffy, S. W. (1996) Trial design based on surrogate end points - application to comparison of different breast screening frequencies. J. R. Statist. Soc. A, 159, 49-60.
5. Freedman, L. S., Graubard, B. I. and Schatzkin, A. (1992) Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic disease. Statist. Med., 11, 167-178.
6. Gail, M. H., Pfeiffer, R., Houwelingen, H. C. and Carroll, R. J. (2000) On meta-analytic assessment of surrogate outcomes. Biostatistics, 3, 231-246.
7. Morrison, A. S. (1991) Intermediate determinants of mortality in the evaluation of screening. Int. J. Epidem., 20, 642-650.
8. Prentice, R. L. (1989) Surrogate end points in clinical trials: definitions and operational criteria. Statist. Med., 8, 431-440.