Common variance! [Design Issues]

posted by jag009  – NJ, 2012-06-13 18:08 (4757 d 00:11 ago) – Posting: # 8728
Views: 9,748

Hi Helmut,

❝ ❝ Could I hypothetically strip the two treatments (successful test formulation and the reference) and re-run stats in a two-way crossover fashion to re-evaulate the data?

❝ (my emphasis)


❝ See this goody (slides 60–67). The title Don’t try this at home! tells it all. You are not the first one having such an idea (see also here).


Don't fly over the atlantic and hit me with a hammer on this ... I am just hypothesizing

If I do strip the good test and reference arms from such a 4-way crossover study (3 T vs R), assign the 2 treatments to a 2-treatment randomization scheme according to how the two were arranged in the original 4-treatment randomization such as,

A, B, C, D --> assign as A D
B, C, D, A --> assign as D A
C, D, A, B --> assign as D A
B, A, C, D --> assign as A D

I then re-run the stats to show that the test is bioequivalent to the reference. The sample size doesn't change.

Why would the above be "Don't try this at home"?

I ran a simulation last night based the data from a successful 2-way crossover study by:
  1. Adding 2 simulated test arms to artificially inflate and deflate the common variance (the pooled intra CV)
  2. Ran 90% CI to get the results for the "Target" arms.
I reverse the simulation (as in stripping the Target and reference arm) and re-evaulate the study as a 2-way study. The results I got was exactly the same as the original data (the 90% CIs matched).

?

Thanks

John

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,673 registered users;
38 visitors (0 registered, 38 guests [including 11 identified bots]).
Forum time: 18:20 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Medical researches can be divided into two sorts:
those who think that meta is better and those
who believe that pooling is fooling.    Stephen Senn

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