Log in
RegisterConfusing… [RSABE / ABEL]
posted by Helmut 
– Vienna, Austria, 2013-04-03 15:42 (4425 d 07:58 ago) – Posting: # 10333
Views: 9,765
Hi John!
Are you trying to confuse me? The sequences are the same; the order is irrelevant. Are you not happy with the “A” and “B”? Such a coding would also work:
hocus pocus pocus
pocus hocus pocus
pocus pocus hocus
I guess the sequences were randomized. By chance it might be that the first three subjects had sequences TRR|TRR|TRR. As long as you had ⅓ of subjects allocated to each of the three sequences no problem.
Duno what you mean by “FDA sequences”. Of course any administration different from the randomization used in the evaluation would screw up everything. Imagine you have a 2×2×2 cross-over in two (!) subjects. They were dosed (1) RT and (2) TR. Now you assume the sequences were TR and RT. What will you get?
Can you post the sequences of e.g., the first twelve subjects?
❝ According to the FDA progesterone guidance, the 3-sequences for a 3-way partial replicate study (TRR) is:
❝ TRR
❝ RTR
❝ RRT
❝ […] the CRO chose the following sequences for a 3-way partial rep study; A=Test, B=Ref. A=Test, B=Ref. I dont know why they did this
❝ BAB (RTR)
❝ ABB (TRR)
❝ BBA (RRT)
Are you trying to confuse me? The sequences are the same; the order is irrelevant. Are you not happy with the “A” and “B”? Such a coding would also work:
hocus pocus pocus
pocus hocus pocus
pocus pocus hocus
I guess the sequences were randomized. By chance it might be that the first three subjects had sequences TRR|TRR|TRR. As long as you had ⅓ of subjects allocated to each of the three sequences no problem.
❝ Would scale average BE (SCABE) computation in SAS yield different results if the period and sequence identifier for Ref1 and Ref2 are messed up (ie: CRO inadvertently used the FDA sequences for stats but used their own sequences for dosing)?
Duno what you mean by “FDA sequences”. Of course any administration different from the randomization used in the evaluation would screw up everything. Imagine you have a 2×2×2 cross-over in two (!) subjects. They were dosed (1) RT and (2) TR. Now you assume the sequences were TR and RT. What will you get?
Can you post the sequences of e.g., the first twelve subjects?
—
Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна!![[image]](https://static.bebac.at/pics/Blue_and_yellow_ribbon_UA.png)
Helmut Schütz
![[image]](https://static.bebac.at/img/CC by.png)
The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes
Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна!
Helmut Schütz
The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes
Complete thread:
- SAS Procedure on Partial Replicate (TRR) Study Data jag009 2013-04-02 21:11 [RSABE / ABEL]
![[Mix]](https://static.bebac.at/img/mix.png "open in Mix view")
- Confusing…Helmut 2013-04-03 13:42
- Confusing… jag009 2013-04-03 16:06
- Confusing… Helmut 2013-04-03 21:49
- Confusing… jag009 2013-04-03 23:01
- Confusing… Helmut 2013-04-03 23:22
- Confusing… jag009 2013-04-04 15:59
- Confusing… jag009 2013-04-04 17:21
- 2nd opinion Helmut 2013-04-05 01:01
- 2nd opinion jag009 2013-04-05 15:24
- 3rd, 4th opinion d_labes 2013-04-05 11:04
- 3rd, 4th opinion jag009 2013-04-05 15:41
- Beer swaped d_labes 2013-04-05 16:09
- Beer swaped jag009 2013-04-05 17:18
- Beer swaped d_labes 2013-04-05 16:09
- 3rd, 4th opinion jag009 2013-04-05 15:41
- 2nd opinion Helmut 2013-04-05 01:01
- Confusing… Helmut 2013-04-03 23:22
- Confusing… jag009 2013-04-03 23:01
- Confusing… Helmut 2013-04-03 21:49
- Confusing… jag009 2013-04-03 16:06
- Confusing…Helmut 2013-04-03 13:42
Ing. Helmut Schütz