Can there be a more patient-centred approach to determining clinically important effect sizes for randomized treatment trials?
- 31 July 1994
- journal article
- Published by Elsevier BV in Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
- Vol. 47 (7), 787-795
- https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(94)90176-7
Abstract
No abstract availableThis publication has 24 references indexed in Scilit:
- ISIS-3: a randomised comparison of streptokinase vs tissue plasminogen activator vs anistreplase and of aspirin plus heparin vs aspirin alone among 41 299 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarctionThe Lancet, 1992
- Patients' willingness to enter clinical trials: Measuring the association with perceived benefit and preference for decision participationSocial Science & Medicine (1982), 1991
- Indexes and boundaries for “quantitative significance” in statistical decisionsJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1990
- In-hospital mortality and clinical course of 20 891 patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction randomised between alteplase and streptokinase with or without heparinThe Lancet, 1990
- Establishing therapeutic equivalency. What is a clinically significant difference?Archives of Internal Medicine, 1986
- Using economic analysis to determine the resource consequences of choices made in planning clinical trialsJournal of Chronic Diseases, 1985
- When was a "negative" clinical trial big enough? How many patients you needed depends on what you foundArchives of Internal Medicine, 1985
- Why do we need some large, simple randomized trials?Statistics in Medicine, 1984
- The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of ChoiceScience, 1981
- The Importance of Beta, the Type II Error and Sample Size in the Design and Interpretation of the Randomized Control TrialThe New England Journal of Medicine, 1978