'Randomisation' for RR/RR design [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by Ohlbe – France, 2008-08-21 17:17 (6511 d 18:36 ago) – Posting: # 2219
Views: 8,469

Dear Helmut,

If I get the point correctly, your idea is to reproduce the same ANOVA model as what you would have in a conventional 2x2 study, is that right ? I mean, to introduce in the ANOVA the sequence effect (normally TR or RT) which you wouldn't have in your study as you only have RR ?

If I look at slide 63 of your lecture, sequence effect can be due to either a real sequence effect (you wouldn't have one with a single RR sequence), a failure of randomisation (not with no randomisation), a true carryover effect (you know enough about BE trials to plan your trial properly, at least if the sponsor listens to you :-P ), or a formulation by period interaction (which I'm not sure you would be able to detect with your artifical R1R2 / R2R1 randomisation). Adding a "randomisation" in your trial and in your model would indeed introduce a "sequence" effect in your ANOVA, and therefore reduce the MSE somehow (and then reduce the intra-CV), but wouldn't it just be an artefact ? Couldn't you then be under-estimating your intra-CV ?

I'm just thinking aloud, you know much more about these things than I do.

Best regards
Ohlbe

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,655 posts in 4,993 threads, 1,570 registered users;
137 visitors (0 registered, 137 guests [including 14 identified bots]).
Forum time: 11:54 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

I have finally come to the konklusion
that a good reliable set ov bowels
iz worth more to a man
than enny quantity of brains.    Josh Billings

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5