Skip to main content

Prognosestudien: Beurteilung potentieller prognostischer Faktoren

  • Chapter
Methodik klinischer Studien

Part of the book series: Statistik und ihre Anwendungen ((STATIST))

  • 3206 Accesses

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 34.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

19.6 Literatur

  • Altman D. Suboptimal analysis using ‘optimal’ cutpoints. Letter to the editor. British Journal of Cancer, 1998; 78: 556–557.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altman DG. Systematic reviews of evaluations of prognostic variables. British Medical Journal 2001; 323:224–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altman DG, Lausen, B, Sauerbrei, W, Schumacher, M. Dangers of using „optimal“ cutpoints in the evaluation of prognostic factors. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1994; 86: 829–835.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breiman L, Friedman JH, Olsen RA, Stone CJ. Classification and regression trees. Monterey: Wadesworth, 1984.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. New York: Chapman and Hall, 1993.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hilsenbeck SG, Clark, GM. Practical p-value adjustment for optimally selected cutpoints. Statistics in Medicine 1996; 15: 103–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holländer N, Schumacher M. On the problem of using ‘optimal’ cutpoints in the assessment of quantitative prognostic factors. Onkologie 2001; 24: 194–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holländer N, Sauerbrei W, Schumacher M. Confidence intervals for the effect of a prognostic factor after selection of an“optimal” cutpoint. Statistics in Medicine 2004;23: 1701–1713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyzas PA, Loizou KT, Ioannidis JPA. Selective reporting biases in cancer procnostic factor studies. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2005; 97: 1043–1055.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lausen B, Schumacher, M. Maximally selected rank statistics. Biometrics 1992; 48: 73–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linderholm B, Tavelin B, Grankvist K, Henriksson R. Vascular endothelial growth factor is of high prognostic value in node-negative breast carcinoma. Journal of Clinical. Oncology 1998; 16: 3121–3128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linderholm B, Grankvist K, Wiling N, Johansson M, Tavelin B, Henriksson R. Correlation of vascular endothelial growth factor content with recurrence, survival, and first relapse site in primary node-positive breast carcinoma after adjuvant treatment. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2000; 18: 1423–1431.

    Google Scholar 

  • McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE, Gion M, Clark GM for the Statistics Subcommittee of the NCI-EORTC Working Group on Cancer Diagnostics. Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK). Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2005; 97: 1180–1184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riley RD, Abrams KR, Sutton AJ, Lambert PC, Jones DR, Heney D, Burchill SA. Reporting of prognostic markers: current problems and development of guidelines for evidence-based practice in the future. British Journal of Cancer 2003; 88: 1191–1198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royston P, Altman DG. Regression using fractional polynomials of continuous covariates: parsimonious parametric modelling (with discussion). Applied Statistics 1994; 43:429–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauerbrei W. Bootstraping in survival analysis. In: Armitage P, Colton T, eds. Encyclopedia of Biostatistics (p. 433–436). New York: Wiley, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauerbrei W, Royston P, Bojar H, Schmoor C, Schumacher M for the German Breast Cancer Study Group. Modelling the effects of standard prognostic factors in node positive breast cancer. British Journal of Cancer 1999, 79: 1752–1760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulgen G, Lausen B, Olsen JH, Schumacher M. Outcome-oriented cutpoints in analysis of quantitative exposures. American Journal of Epidemiology 1994; 140: 172–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumacher M, Holländer N, Sauerbrei W. Resampling and cross-validation techniques: A tool to reduce bias caused by model building? Statistics in Medicine 1997; 16: 2813–2827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumacher M, Holländer N, Schwarzer G, Sauerbrei W. Prognostic Factor Studies. In: Crowley J, ed. Handbook of Statistics in Clinical Oncology (p. 321–378). New York: Marcel Dekker, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumacher M, Holländer N, Schwarzer G, Sauerbrei W. Prognostic Factor Studies. In: Crowley J, Pauler Ankerst D, eds. Handbook of Statistics in Clinical Oncology, 2nd edition (p. 289–333). Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon R, Altman DG. Statistical aspects of prognostic factors studies in oncology. British Journal of Cancer 1994; 69: 979–985.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verweij P, Van Houwelingen HC. Cross-validation in survival analysis. Statistics in Medicine 1993; 12: 2305–2314.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Holländer, N., Schumacher, M. (2007). Prognosestudien: Beurteilung potentieller prognostischer Faktoren. In: Methodik klinischer Studien. Statistik und ihre Anwendungen. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-36990-5_19

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics