Analysis of multiple endpoints in clinical trials: It's time for the designations of primary, secondary and tertiary to go

Pharmaceutical Statistics

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 1-2

  Snapinn, Steven ^a   Jiang, Qi ^a  

^a AMGEN INC   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); ERROR; NOTE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; HUMANS; RESEARCH DESIGN; STATISTICS AS TOPIC;

EID: 79551567087     PISSN: 15391604     EISSN: 15391612     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pst.402     Document Type: Note

References (8)

1. Lewis J,. Editorial: 10 years of ICH E9. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2008; 7: 1-3.
2. Brown D, Day S, Hemmings R, Wright D,. Assessing the impact of ICH E9. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2008; 7: 77-87.
3. Rockhold FW, Ruberg SJ,. ICH-E9 reflections and considerations. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2008; 7: 233-235.
4. Dmitrienko A, Tamhane AC,. Gatekeeping procedures with clinical trial application. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2007; 6: 171-180.
5. Hung HMJ, Wang S-J,. Some controversial multiple testing problems in regulatory applications. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 2009; 19: 1-11.
6. Dmitrienko A, Tamhane AC, Wang X, Chen X,. Stepwise gatekeeping procedures in clinical trial applications. Biometrical Journal 2006; 48: 984-991.
7. Wiens BL, Dmitrienko A,. A fallback procedure for evaluating a single family of hypotheses. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 2005; 15: 929-942.
8. Li J, Mehrotra DV,. An efficient method for accommodating potentially underpowered primary endpoints. Statistics in Medicine 2008; 27: 5377-5391.