References
- Darken, P., J. Nyberg, S. Ballal, and D. Wright. 2020, Sep. The attributable estimand: A new approach to account for intercurrent events. Pharmaceutical Statistics 19(5):626–635. doi:10.1002/pst.2019.
- Hernán, M. A., and J. M. Robins. 2017 Oct 5. Per-protocol analyses of pragmatic trials. The New England Journal of Medicine 377(14):1391–1398. doi:10.1056/NEJMsm1605385.
- ICH E9(R1) Addendum on estimands and sensitivity analysis in clinical trials to the guideline on statistical principles for clinical trials. (Effective in EMA 30 July 2020)
- Keene, O. N. 2019, Jan. Strategies for composite estimands in confirmatory clinical trials: Examples from trials in nasal polyps and steroid reduction. Pharmaceutical Statistics 18(1):78–84. doi:10.1002/pst.1909.
- Keene, O. N., D. Wright, A. Phillips, and M. Wright. 2021. Why ITT analysis is not always the answer for estimating treatment effects in clinical trials. Contemporary Clinical Trials 108:106494. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2021.106494.
- Ratitch, B., J. Bell, C. Mallinckrodt, J. W. Bartlett, N. Goel, G. Molenberghs, M. O’Kelly, P. Singh, and I. Lipkovich. 2020, Mar. Choosing estimands in clinical trials: Putting the ICH E9 (R1) into practice. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science 54(2):324–341. doi:10.1007/s43441-019-00061-x.
- Ting, N. 2023. Emerging insights and commentaries – MMRM vs LOCF. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 33 (2):253–255. doi:10.1080/10543406.2023.2184828.