Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney! [Nonparametrics]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2018-06-19 13:25 (981 d 08:54 ago) – Posting: # 18921
Views: 4,883

(edited by d_labes on 2018-06-19 13:36)

Dear Helmut,

» » […] In a 2*2 cross-over BE study. If we want to test the Tmax betweent different treatments. Which test statistic should be used? Wilcoxon signed rank test or Wilcoxon rank sum test?
» The former (aka Wilcoxon T test).
» The latter (aka Mann–Whitney U test, Mann–Whitney–Wilcoxon test, Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test) is for independent samples (parallel design).

Here you err!

The Wilcoxon signed rank test1 can only applied if you neglect period effects. It tests the within-subject treatment differences against zero and is therefore a non-parametric analogon of the paired Student t-test.

To account for period effects you have to apply the Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test2 with sequence as grouping factor if you evaluate a 2x2 cross-over design. This test is sometimes also called Hauschke test. Guess why :cool:.
In case of a parallel design the grouping factor is of course the treatment, as you correctly stated.

The cited example you quote uses the correct test.
And I suppose Phoenix 8.0 / Crossover object does the same

1 V. W. Steinijans and E. Diletti
"Statistical Analysis of Bioavailability Studies: Parametric and Nonparametric Confidence Intervals"
Eur J Clin Pharmacol (1983) 24:127-136

"A distribution-free procedure for the statistical analysis of bioequivalence studies"
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, Therapy and Toxicology,
Vol. 28 No. 2 -1990 (72-78) / Vol.30, Suppl. No. 1 -1992 (pp,S37-43)



Complete thread:

 Admin contact
21,355 posts in 4,458 threads, 1,493 registered users;
online 4 (0 registered, 4 guests [including 3 identified bots]).
Forum time: Wednesday 21:20 CET (Europe/Vienna)

It is better to be wrong than to be vague.
In trial and error, the error is the true essential.    Freeman Dyson

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