Comments on ”Emerging insights and commentaries – MMRM vs LOCF by Naitee Ting”

David Wrighta Statistical Innovation, Data Science & Artificial Intelligence, Biopharmaceuticals R&D, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UKCorrespondence[email protected]
View further author information

Daniel J. Brattonb Statistics and Data Science Innovation Hub, GSK, London, UKView further author information

Thomas Druryb Statistics and Data Science Innovation Hub, GSK, London, UKView further author information

Oliver N. Keenec KeeneONStatisticsView further author information

Sunita Rehalb Statistics and Data Science Innovation Hub, GSK, London, UKView further author information

Ian R. Whited MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, University College LondonView further author information

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.
PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
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.
PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
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)
Google Scholar
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.
PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
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.
PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
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.
PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
Ting, N. 2023. Emerging insights and commentaries – MMRM vs LOCF. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 33 (2):253–255. doi:10.1080/10543406.2023.2184828.
PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Comments on ”Emerging insights and commentaries – MMRM vs LOCF by Naitee Ting”

References

Information for

Open access

Opportunities

Help and information

Your download is now in progress and you may close this window

Login or register to access this feature

Comments on ”Emerging insights and commentaries – MMRM vs LOCF by Naitee Ting”

References

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Related research

To cite this article:

Download citation

Information for

Open access

Opportunities

Help and information

Keep up to date