What's new in trial design: propensity scores, equivalence, and non-inferiority.

Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores. Ann Intern Med (1997) 19.65

Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med (2009) 17.17

Bias in analytic research. J Chronic Dis (1979) 16.40

The importance of beta, the type II error and sample size in the design and interpretation of the randomized control trial. Survey of 71 "negative" trials. N Engl J Med (1978) 15.13

Effects of extended-release metoprolol succinate in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery (POISE trial): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet (2008) 13.15

The risk associated with aprotinin in cardiac surgery. N Engl J Med (2006) 10.98

Single-bolus tenecteplase compared with front-loaded alteplase in acute myocardial infarction: the ASSENT-2 double-blind randomised trial. Lancet (1999) 4.36

Propensity-score matching in the cardiovascular surgery literature from 2004 to 2006: a systematic review and suggestions for improvement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg (2007) 3.76

Reliable assessment of the effects of treatment on mortality and major morbidity, II: observational studies. Lancet (2001) 3.71

A propensity score case-control comparison of aprotinin and tranexamic acid in high-transfusion-risk cardiac surgery. Transfusion (2006) 3.56

Reliable assessment of the effects of treatment on mortality and major morbidity, I: clinical trials. Lancet (2001) 3.32

Validity of composite end points in clinical trials. BMJ (2005) 3.26

Problems with use of composite end points in cardiovascular trials: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ (2007) 3.06

Translating statistical findings into plain English. Lancet (2009) 2.36

Claims of equivalence in medical research: are they supported by the evidence? Ann Intern Med (2000) 2.27

Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2007) 2.19

From randomized controlled trials to observational studies. Am J Med (2009) 2.03

Trials and tribulations of non-inferiority: the ximelagatran experience. J Am Coll Cardiol (2005) 1.75

Key issues in end point selection for heart failure trials: composite end points. J Card Fail (2005) 1.49

Good enough: a primer on the analysis and interpretation of noninferiority trials. Ann Intern Med (2006) 1.47

Lessons from and cautions about noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials. JAMA (2006) 1.40

The problem with composite end points in cardiovascular studies: the story of major adverse cardiac events and percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol (2008) 1.29

Medical versus early surgical therapy in patients with triple-vessel disease and mild angina pectoris: a CASS registry study of survival. Ann Thorac Surg (1987) 1.24

Composite and surrogate outcomes in randomised controlled trials. BMJ (2007) 0.97

Propensity scores and the surgeon. Br J Surg (2006) 0.90

You cannot exclude the explanation you have not considered. Lancet (1993) 0.88

Equivalence and noninferiority trials. Am Heart J (2000) 0.85

Randomized comparison between tirofiban and abciximab to promote complete ST-resolution in primary angioplasty: results of the facilitated angioplasty with tirofiban or abciximab (FATA) in ST-elevation myocardial infarction trial. Eur Heart J (2008) 0.85

Platelet transfusion in cardiac surgery does not confer increased risk for adverse morbid outcomes. Ann Thorac Surg (2008) 0.83

The effect of epsilon-aminocaproic acid and aprotinin on fibrinolysis and blood loss in patients undergoing primary, isolated coronary artery bypass surgery: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, noninferiority trial. Anesth Analg (2009) 0.82

Clinical trials: how to assess confounding and why so. Curr Clin Pharmacol (2007) 0.79

Large multicenter trials: what do they achieve and what should be done in perfusion? J Extra Corpor Technol (2007) 0.77