Choosing Appropriate Estimands in Clinical Trials (Leuchs et al): Letter to the Editor

Therapeutic Innovation and Regulatory Science

Volumn 49, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 601-

  Garrett, Andrew ^a  

^a NONE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); DEPRESSION; EDITORIAL; ESTIMAND; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT; PROTOCOL COMPLIANCE; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STUDY DESIGN;

EID: 84936769569     PISSN: 21684790     EISSN: 21684804     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/2168479015586004     Document Type: Editorial

References (4)

1. A.LeuchsJ.ZinserlingA.BrandtD.WirtzN.Benda. Choosing appropriate estimands in clinical trials [published online February 17, 2015]. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. doi:10.1177/2168479014567317.
2. M.O’KellyS.BerryD.WalpA.Garrett. Lifecycle modeling and simulation: current practice and future impact on healthcare innovation and delivery. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. 2013;47(2):175–182.
3. International Conference on Harmonisation. ICH harmonised tripartite guideline: general considerations for clinical trials: E8. 1997. http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Efficacy/E8/Step4/E8_Guideline.pdf. Accessed March 2015.
4. K.Fritsch. Multiplicity issues in FDA-reviewed clinical trials. Presented at: EMA Workshop on Multiplicity Issues in Clinical Trials; November 16, 2012; London, UK. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Presentation/2013/03/WC500140627.pdf. Accessed March 2015.