Significance of Group effect in Russia: why the type III is so 'important' [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by mittyri – Russia, 2016-10-11 15:07 (1558 d 04:46 ago) – Posting: # 16724
Views: 29,952

(edited by mittyri on 2016-10-11 17:02)

Dear Detlew,

Thank you very much, it clarifies a lot the R's model logic.
I would explain the current situation in Russia and why we are so interested in ANOVA type III.
Russian experts read your post with a letter from Barbara Davit.
Now in ALL cases when the Protocol does not state the splitting to the groups, they are requesting the analysis with a group term, if the study was conducted in groups (irrespective of the reasons and time).
As you know there is an algo in FDA guidance, if the Group term is significant, one cannot pool them and should proceed an analysis in one of the groups. (almost) End of Story.
Many protocols state that all effects should be fixed (according to EMA GL)!
So I tried to modify your code to get the significance level of group effect and I've found that I cannot reproduce ANOVA type III PHX results in R (using FDA approach and all-fixed-effects approach).

» Better drink a good beer or a good glas of vine :party: while contemplating about the meaning of life and that all.
Agree :-D

Kind regards,

Complete thread:

 Admin contact
21,303 posts in 4,441 threads, 1,487 registered users;
online 11 (1 registered, 10 guests [including 5 identified bots]).
Forum time: Saturday 18:54 CET (Europe/Vienna)

If you can’t solve a problem, then there is an easier problem
you can solve: find it.    George Pólya

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