|
purvaph ☆ India, 2012-07-04 07:45 (5093 d 17:43 ago) Posting: # 8884 Views: 9,280 |
|
|
Hi All, I have a query regarding 2*2 Crossover Bioequivalence proc plan seed=0011202 ;Initially the output generated for randomization of 28 subjects starts from Subjects 1 to 28 with respective blocks and sequences. Can I know the SAS code which will give me the randomization output from Subjects 21 to 28 without change in sequence and blocks? Kindly let me know where those SAS Code should be added in PROC PLAN or in different step? Regards, Ajitha Ponnukuttan |
|
d_labes ★★★ Berlin, Germany, 2012-07-04 19:06 (5093 d 06:22 ago) @ purvaph Posting: # 8891 Views: 8,045 |
|
|
Dear Ajitha! Nothing simpler than that. Try: *the option /noprint prevents output which is annoying at leastThis is an example of great creativity of the SAS developers. Usually one has to use the noprint option on the Proc line ( Proc plan seed=12345 noprint;). But here this gives an error .— Regards, Detlew |
|
purvaph ☆ India, 2012-07-24 09:11 (5073 d 16:17 ago) @ d_labes Posting: # 8973 Views: 7,804 |
|
|
Hey Thanks for the response...The Program actually worked..... ![]() ![]() ![]() Regards, Ajitha Ponnukuttan |
|
jag009 ★★★ NJ, 2012-09-18 19:50 (5017 d 05:39 ago) @ d_labes Posting: # 9237 Views: 7,525 |
|
|
Dear D_labes, Do you see anything strange on my 4-way crossover randomization code? Just checking ![]() proc plan seed=12152;Thanks John |
|
d_labes ★★★ Berlin, Germany, 2012-09-19 18:46 (5016 d 06:43 ago) @ jag009 Posting: # 9239 Views: 7,613 |
|
|
Dear John, ❝ Do you see anything strange on my 4-way crossover randomization code? Looking at the result of your code (hope you have checked it by yourself) I noticed that there is not too much random in your randomization .Just a 6 times repetition of the sequences
1 ADBCMay be that some regulators/assessors are not satisfied with that. See Helmut's post on a similar question for a randomization of 2x2 crossover designs. Try to use random instead of ordered after your factor Subject— Regards, Detlew |
|
jag009 ★★★ NJ, 2012-09-20 23:20 (5015 d 02:09 ago) @ d_labes Posting: # 9241 Views: 7,378 |
|
|
Thanks d_labes ![]() |
|
jag009 ★★★ NJ, 2012-09-25 20:07 (5010 d 05:22 ago) @ d_labes Posting: # 9251 Views: 7,357 |
|
|
Thanks D_labes (Part 2 )»...I noticed that there is not too much random in your randomization .❝ Just a 6 times repetition of the sequences ❝ ❝ 1 ADBC ❝ 2 DBCA ❝ 3 BCAD ❝ 4 CADB I see, you were referring to the DB, CA, AD... Below is better... 1 ABDC 2 BCAD 3 CDBA 4 DACB Thanks John |
|
d_labes ★★★ Berlin, Germany, 2012-09-26 13:59 (5009 d 11:29 ago) @ jag009 Posting: # 9262 Views: 7,751 |
|
|
Dear John, What does the poet want to tell us? (An old question from school days.)I didn't criticized the chosen Latin square. IMHO it is not necessary to choose a Williams square which is said to be balanced with respect to 'first order carry over' since our usual evaluation does not consider such an effect. Beside the fact that 'first order carry over' is highly criticized (see Stephen Senn's book "Cross-over Trials in Clinical Research"). The use of Williams design is nevertheless often used nowadays because of historical reasons. What I tried to say was that your code results in a 'random' list which was a simple repetition of the four sequences, i.e subjects 1-4 were assigned to the four sequences, subjects 8-12 to the same four sequences and so on. Try the code
proc plan seed=12152;to see the difference. — Regards, Detlew |
.
.
What does the poet want to tell us? (An old question from school days.)