2000
Clinical Measurement, Statistical Analysis, and Risk-Benefit: Controversies from Trials of Spinal Injury
Bracken M, Aldrich E, Herr D, Hitchon P, Holford T, Marshall L, Nockels R, Pascale V, Shepard M, Sonntag V, Winn H, Young W. Clinical Measurement, Statistical Analysis, and Risk-Benefit: Controversies from Trials of Spinal Injury. Journal Of Trauma And Acute Care Surgery 2000, 48: 558-561. PMID: 10744306, DOI: 10.1097/00005373-200003000-00036.Commentaries, Editorials and LettersConceptsNational Acute Spinal Cord Injury StudyAcute Spinal Cord Injury StudyAcute spinal cord injurySpinal Cord Injury StudyClinical measurementsHigh-dose methylprednisoloneSecondary neuronal damageSpinal cord injuryRisk benefitNeuronal damageFunctional recoverySafety profileCord injuryPharmacologic agentsSpinal injuryInjury studiesInnovative therapiesTrialsStatistical analysisInjuryMulticenterMethylprednisoloneSeries of trialsTherapyPrevention
1993
Analysis as‐randomized and the problem of non‐adherence: An example from the veterans affairs randomized trial of coronary artery bypass surgery
Peduzzi P, Wittes J, Detre K, Holford T. Analysis as‐randomized and the problem of non‐adherence: An example from the veterans affairs randomized trial of coronary artery bypass surgery. Statistics In Medicine 1993, 12: 1185-1195. PMID: 8210821, DOI: 10.1002/sim.4780121302.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchMeSH KeywordsAngina PectorisBiasCoronary Artery BypassCoronary DiseaseFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMyocardial InfarctionPatient DropoutsPostoperative ComplicationsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurvival AnalysisSurvival RateTreatment RefusalConceptsCoronary artery bypass surgeryArtery bypass surgeryTreatment groupsAlternative treatment groupBypass surgeryTreatment changesVeterans Administration Cooperative StudyTime of randomizationRandomized clinical trialsTreat analysisClinical trialsOutcome eventsRandom treatment assignmentCooperative StudyVeterans AffairsTreatment assignmentTherapySurgeryTrialsGroupPatients
1991
Intent-to-treat analysis and the problem of crossovers An example from the Veterans Administration coronary bypass surgery study
Peduzzi P, Detre K, Wittes J, Holford T. Intent-to-treat analysis and the problem of crossovers An example from the Veterans Administration coronary bypass surgery study. Journal Of Thoracic And Cardiovascular Surgery 1991, 101: 481-487. PMID: 1999942, DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5223(19)36731-5.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchMeSH KeywordsActuarial AnalysisCoronary Artery BypassHumansProportional Hazards ModelsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignSurvival AnalysisSurvival RateConceptsTreat analysisTreatment changesVeterans Administration Cooperative StudyDate of randomizationIschemic heart diseaseRandomized clinical trialsNew treatment groupEffect of treatmentStable anginaSurgical therapyMedical therapySurgical treatmentInitial treatmentSurgical interventionSurgery StudyMajor trialsHeart diseaseClinical trialsTreatment groupsCooperative StudySurvival dataTreatmentTherapyTrialsAdherence
1990
A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Methylprednisolone or Naloxone in the Treatment of Acute Spinal-Cord Injury
Bracken M, Shepard M, Collins W, Holford T, Young W, Baskin D, Eisenberg H, Flamm E, Leo-Summers L, Maroon J, Marshall L, Perot P, Piepmeier J, Sonntag V, Wagner F, Wilberger J, Winn H. A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Methylprednisolone or Naloxone in the Treatment of Acute Spinal-Cord Injury. New England Journal Of Medicine 1990, 322: 1405-1411. PMID: 2278545, DOI: 10.1056/nejm199005173222001.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchConceptsAcute spinal cord injurySpinal cord injuryNeurologic recoverySafety of methylprednisoloneSystematic neurological examinationPlacebo-controlled trialHours of injuryMajor morbidityNeurologic outcomeControlled TrialsNeurological examinationIncomplete lesionsMotor functionMethylprednisoloneNaloxonePatientsBody weightSensory functionInjuryPlaceboInfusionBolusEffective remainsTreatmentDose