SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Response rate accuracy in oncology trials: reasons for interobserver variability. Groupe Français d'Immunothérapie of the Fédération Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer.
3 references·4 citing·16 second hop
Response rate accuracy in oncology trials: reasons for interobserver variability. Groupe Français d'Immunothérapie of the Fédération Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer. (1997)Response rate accuracy in oncology trials…Analysis of interobserver and intraobserver variability in CT tumor measurements. (1996)Analysis of interobserver and…Reporting results of cancer treatment (1981)Reporting results of cancer t…The effect of measuring error on the results of therapeutic trials in advanced cancer (1976)The effect of measuring error…Observer variability in RECIST-based tumour burden measurements: a meta-analysis (2015)Observer variability in RECIS…Intra- and Interobserver Variability in CT Measurements in Oncology (2013)Intra- and Interobserver Vari…Semi-automatic software increases CT measurement accuracy but not response classification of colorectal liver metastases after chemotherapy (2012)Semi-automatic software incre…Observer variability in a phase II trial – assessing consistency in RECIST application (2012)Observer variability in a pha…Interobserver and intraobserver variability in the response evaluation of cancer therapy according to RECIST and WHO-criteria (2010)Evaluation of inter-observer variability according to RECIST 1.1 and its influence on response classification in CT measurement of liver metastases (2017)Interobserver Variation in Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 (2018)The Kappa Statistic in Reliability Studies: Use, Interpretation, and Sample Size Requirements (2005)Reliability, repeatability and reproducibility: analysis of measurement errors in continuous variables (2008)Akufo and Ibarapa (1965)STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT (1986)Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses (2003)Measurement of pancreatic cystic lesions on magnetic resonance imaging: efficacy of standards in reducing inter-observer variability (2016)Smallest real difference, a link between reproducibility and responsiveness (2001)Precision of Health-Related Quality-of-Life Data Compared With Other Clinical Measures (2007)Clinician-Reported Outcome Assessments of Treatment Benefit: Report of the ISPOR Clinical Outcome Assessment Emerging Good Practices Task Force (2017)Better Reporting of Harms in Randomized Trials: An Extension of the CONSORT Statement (2004)Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care (2010)The COMET Handbook: version 1.0 (2017)Computed Tomography Assessment of Hepatic Metastases of Breast Cancer with Revised Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) Criteria (Version 1.1): Inter-Observer Agreement (2018)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 1981Reporting results of cancer treatment7,798 cited
  • 1976The effect of measuring error on the results of therapeutic trials in advanced cancer256 cited
  • 1996Analysis of interobserver and intraobserver variability in CT tumor measurements.184 cited

Cited by

  • 2013Intra- and Interobserver Variability in CT Measurements in Oncology117 cited
  • 2015Observer variability in RECIST-based tumour burden measurements: a meta-analysis99 cited
  • 2012Observer variability in a phase II trial – assessing consistency in RECIST application18 cited
  • 2012Semi-automatic software increases CT measurement accuracy but not response classification of colorectal liver metastases after chemotherapy16 cited

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work