Skip to main content

Fundamental Issues of Choosing the Right Type of Trial

  • Chapter
Human Experimentation

Abstract

Background. Relevant advantages and disadvantages of crossover/self-controlled and parallel-group studies are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Moser LE. Statistical concepts fundamental to investigators. N Engl J Med 1985; 312: 890–897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Sitthi-Amorn C, Poshyachinda V. Bias. Lancet 1993; 342(II): 286–288.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Griso JA. Making comparisons. Lancet 1993; 324(II): 157–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cleophas TJ, Bailar JC. Statistical concepts fundamental to investigations [letter]. N Engl J Med 1985; 313: 1026.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Harrison DG. Clinical testing of beta-adrenergic blockade in angina pectoris, in Morselli P.O., et al. (ed.): Laboratoires d’Etudes et de Recherches Synthelabo. Vol 1, New York, Raven Press 1983; 243–250.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Brown BW. The crossover experiment for clinical trials. Biometrics 1980; 36: 69–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cleophas TJ. Testing Crossover studies for carryover effects. Angiology 1989; 40: 287–293.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Van Lier HJ, Cleophas TJ. The crossover design in cardiovascular research, Abstract Book, Annual Meeting. International College of Angiology, Montreux, Switzerland, ed. by the International College of Angiology, Roslyn. N.Y., 1987; p 41.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Willan AR, Pater JL. Carryover and the two-period clinical trial. Biometrics 1986; 42: 593–599.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hills M, Armitage P. The two-period crossover trial. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1979; 8: 7–20.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Barker M, Hew RJ, Huitson A, Poloniecki J. The two period crossover trial. Bias 1982; 9: 67–112.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cleophas TJ. Underestimation of treatment effect in crossover trials. Angiology 1990; 41: 855–864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cleophas TJ. (atCrossover studies: a modified analysis with more power). Clin Pharmacol Ther 1993; 53: 515–520.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Cleophas TJ. A simple method for the estimation of interaction bias in crossover studies. J Clin Pharmacol 1990; 30: 1036–1040.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Cleophas TJ. The performance of the two-stage analysis of two-period crossover trials [letter]. Stat Med 1991; 10: 489–495.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Cleophas TJ, Niemeyer MG. Carryover effects in cardiovascular crossover studies: the standard and the clinical analysis. Angiology 1993; 44: 271–279.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Cleophas TJ. Interaction biases in two-period crossover studies: a modified analysis to test with more sensitivity. Biom J 1993; 35: 181–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Pocock SJ, Hughes MD, Lee RJ. Statistical problems in the reporting of clinical trials. N Engl J of Med 1987; 317: 426–432.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Packer M. Combined beta-adrenergic and calcium entry blockade in angina pectoris. N Engl J Med 1989; 320: 709–718.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Fleiss JL. A critique of recent research on the two-treatment crossover design. Controll Clin Trials 1989; 10: 237–244.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Grieve AP. A bayesian analysis of the two-period crossover design for clinical trials. Biometrics 1985; 41: 979–990.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Freeman PR. The performance of the two-stage analysis of two-treatment, two-period crossover trials. Stat Med 1989; 8: 1421–1432.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Jones B, Kennard MG. Design and Analysis of Crossover Trials. New York: Routledge, Chapman & Hall, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Prescott RJ. The comparison of success rates in crossover trials in the presence of an order effect. Appi Stat 30: 9–15, 1981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Cornfield J, O’Neill RT. Minutes of the food and drug administation, biostatistics and epidemiology Advisory Committee meeting, June 23, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Strathers AD, Dollery CT. Therapeutic approaches. In “Handbook of Hypertension”. Doyle AE, ed., Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1984, 2–3.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cleophas, T.J. (1999). Fundamental Issues of Choosing the Right Type of Trial. In: Human Experimentation. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4663-0_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4663-0_2

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-7923-5827-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-011-4663-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics