JiLMcShaneLMKrailoM, et al. Bias in retrospective analyses of biomarker effect using data from an outcome-adaptive randomized trial. Clin TrialsIN PRESS.
2.
SavilleBRMuererW. Commentary on Ji et al: sub-optimal illustration of response adaptive randomization. Clin TrialsIN PRESS.
3.
BerryDA.Commentary on Hey and Kimmelman. Clin Trials2015; 12(2): 107–109.
4.
BuyseM.Commentary on Hey and Kimmelman. Clin Trials2015; 12(2): 119–121.
5.
DuYWangXJackLeeJ.Simulation study for evaluating the performance of response-adaptive randomization. Contemp Clin Trials2015; 40: 15–25.
6.
FreidlinBKornELGrayR, et al. Multi-arm clinical trials of new agents: some design considerations. Clin Cancer Res2008; 14(14): 4368–4371.
7.
FreidlinBMcShaneLMPolleyMY, et al. Randomized phase II trial designs with biomarkers. J Clin Oncol2012; 30(26): 3304–3309.
8.
FreidlinBKornEL.Adaptive randomization versus interim monitoring. J Clin Oncol2013; 31(7): 969–970.
JoffeSEllenbergSS.Commentary on Hey and Kimmelman. Clin Trials2015; 12(2): 116–118.
12.
KornELFreidlinB.Outcome —adaptive randomization: is it useful. J Clin Oncol2011; 29(6): 771–776.
13.
KornELFreidlinB.Commentary on Hey and Kimmelman. Clin Trials2015; 12(2): 122–124.
14.
KornELFreidlinB.Adaptive clinical trials: advantages and disadvantages of various adaptive design elements. J Natl Cancer Inst2017; 109(6). DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djx013.
15.
LeeJJChenNYinG.Worth adapting? Revisiting the usefulness of outcome-adaptive randomization. Clin Cancer Res2012; 18(17): 4498–4507.