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

posted by Ohlbe – France, 2008-08-21 17:17 (6508 d 00:23 ago) – Posting: # 2219
Views: 8,448

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
23,654 posts in 4,992 threads, 1,571 registered users;
154 visitors (0 registered, 154 guests [including 23 identified bots]).
Forum time: 17:41 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Always listen to experts.
They’ll tell you what can’t be done and why.
Then do it.    Robert A. Heinlein

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