Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum

Neglecting period effects? [General Statistics]

posted by d_labes – Berlin, Germany, 2009-06-10 12:10 (6216 d 05:00 ago) – Posting: # 3840
Views: 16,627

Dear Helmut,

❝ An alternative to two different studies [...] a 2-sequence, 4-period design of following type would avoid confounding issues:

❝ T_fasted R_fasted T_fed R_fed

❝ R_fasted T_fasted R_fed T_fed

❝ In such a design treatments in periods 1 and 2 can be compared in fasted state and in periods 3 and 4 in fed state as a conventional cross-over.

❝ Additionally T_fed vs. T_fasted and R_fed vs. R_fasted can be evaluated as a paired design (with high power, but avoiding confounding issues).

What exactly You mean with "evaluated as a paired design"?

—
Regards,

Detlew

Complete thread:

4-period BE study fed/fasting: statistical issues Amandine 2009-06-04 12:31
- Confounded effects; common variance Helmut 2009-06-04 12:55
  - Neglecting period effects?d_labes 2009-06-10 10:10
    - Assumptions... Helmut 2009-06-23 14:38
  - What if... Ohlbe 2010-03-10 14:27
    - What if... Dr_Dan 2010-03-11 15:50
      - What if… Helmut 2010-03-11 16:39
        
        What if… Dr_Dan 2010-03-12 08:49
        
        Need-to-know / nice-to-know Helmut 2010-03-12 11:35
        
        many ANOVA but only one trial boonchai_l 2010-05-24 11:53
        
        many ANOVA but only one trial GSTATS 2010-06-08 21:52

Neglecting period effects? [General Sta­tis­tics]

Complete thread:

Neglecting period effects? [General Statistics]