A perfect correlate does not a surrogate make

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Volumn 3, Issue , 2003, Pages 1-5

  Baker, Stuart G ^a   Kramer, Barnett S ^b  

^a NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROL GROUP; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; EXPERIMENTAL MODEL; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; RANDOMIZATION;

EID: 2942720882     PISSN: 14712288     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-3-16     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Fleming TR and DeMets DL: Surrogate end points in clinical trials: Are we being misled? Annals of Internal Medicine 1996, 125:605-613.
2. Biomarkers Definition Working Group: Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 2001, 69:89-95.
3. Writing Group for the Women's Health Initiative Investigators: Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results from the Women's Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of the American Medical Association 2002, 288:2321-333.
4. Sandier RS, Halabi S, Baron JA, Budinger S, Paskett E, Keresztes R, Petrelli N, Pipas JM, Karp DD, Loprinzi CL, Steinbach G and Schilsky R: A randomized trial of aspirin to prevent colorectal adenomas in patients with previous colorectal cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 2003, 348:883-890.
5. Baron JA, Cole BF, Sandier RS, Haile RW, Ahnen D, Bresalier R, McKeown-Eyssen G, Summers RW, Rothstein R, Burke CA, Snover DC, Church TR, Allen JI, Beach M, Beck GJ, Bond JH, Byers T, Greenberg ER, Mandel JS, Marcon N, Mott LA, Pearson L, Saibil F and van Stolk RU: A randomized trial of aspirin to prevent colorectal adenomas. New England Journal of Medicine 2003, 348:891-899.
6. Imperiale TF: Aspirin and the prevention of colorectal cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 2003, 348:879-880.
7. Levin B: Potential pitfalls in the use of surrogate endpoints in colorectal adenoma chemoprevention. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2003, 95:697-698.
8. Schatzkin A and Gail M: The promise and peril of surrogate endpoints in cancer research. Nature Reviews Cancer 2002, 2:1-9.
9. Thompson IM, Goodman PJ, Tangen CM, Lucia MS, Miller GJ, Ford LG, Lieber MM, Cespedes RD, Atkins JN, Lippman SM, Carlin SM, Ryan A, Szczepanek CM, Crowley JJ and Coltman CA: The influence of finasteride on the development of prostate cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 2003, 349:215-224.
10. Prentice RL: Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: Definitions and operational criteria. Statistics in Medicine 1989, 8:431-430.
11. Wang Y and Taylor JMG: A measure of the proportion of treatment effect explained by a surrogate marker. Biometrics 2002, 58:803-812.
12. Baker SG: Analyzing a randomized cancer prevention trial with a missing binary outcome, an auxiliary variable, and all-or-none compliance. Journal of the American Statistical Association 2000, 95:43-50.
13. Gail MH, Pfeiffer R, Houwelingen HC and Carroll RJ: On meta-analytic assessment of surrogate outcomes. Biostatistics 2001, 3: 231-246.
14. Molenberghs G, Buyse M, Geys H, Renard D, Burzykowski T and Alonso A: Statistical challenges in the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in randomized trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 2002, 23:607-625.
15. Frangakis CE and Rubin DB: Principal stratification in casual inference. Biometrics 2002, 58:21-29.