Three persistent issues in analysis of clinical trials involving diagnostic contrast agents

Drug Information Journal

Volumn 43, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 525-532

  Lehr, Robert G ^a   Kashanian, Franciska K ^a  

^a BAYER CORPORATION   (United States)

Author keywords

Accuracy; Blinded reader; Contrast agent; Diagnostic imaging; McNemar test; MRI; Multiplicity; Sensitivity; Specificity; Standard of reference; Uninterpretable

Indexed keywords

CONTRAST MEDIUM; DIAGNOSTIC AGENT;

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REFERENCE VALUE; STANDARD;

EID: 70350168896     PISSN: 00928615     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/009286150904300501     Document Type: Article

References (6)

1. Donner A. Statistical methods in ophthalmology: an adjusted chi-square approach. Biometrics. 1989;45:2. (Pubitemid 19165270)
2. Rao JNK, Scott A. A simple method for the analysis of clustered binary data. Biometrics. 1992;48:577-585.
3. Obuchowski N. On the comparison of correlated proportions for clustered data. Stat Med. 1998;17:1495-1507.
4. Liang K-Y, Zeger SL. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika. 1986;73:13-22.
5. Liang K-Y, Song J, Ahn C. Cluster randomization trials. Biometric J. 2002;44:375-390.
6. US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry, Developing Medical Imaging Drug and Biological Products, Part 3: Design, Analysis, and Interpretation of Clinical Studies. June 2004:13-18.