Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28685497›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2017

Linear combinations come alive in crossover designs.

Jonathan J Shuster

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Jonathan J ShusterDepartment of Health Outcomes and Policy, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 32610, U.S.A.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9499-5616

Funding

Using social networks to map and evaluate team science across CTSA hubsUL1TR001427 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI MITCHELL, DUANE A. · 2015 to 2024
$37.2M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001427
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Before learning anything about statistical inference in beginning service courses in biostatistics, students learn how to calculate the mean and variance of linear combinations of random variables. Practical precalculus examples of the importance of these exercises can be helpful for instructors, the target audience of this paper. We shall present applications to the "1-sample" and "2-sample" methods for randomized short-term 2-treatment crossover studies, where patients experience both treatments in random order with a "washout" between the active treatment periods. First, we show that the 2-sample method is preferred as it eliminates "conditional bias" when sample sizes by order differ and produces a smaller variance. We also demonstrate that it is usually advisable to use the differences in posttests (ignoring baseline and post washout values) rather than the differences between the changes in treatment from the start of the period to the end of the period ("delta of delta"). Although the intent is not to provide a definitive discussion of crossover designs, we provide a section and references to excellent alternative methods, where instructors can provide motivation to students to explore the topic in greater detail in future readings or courses.

Indexed as

Cross-Over StudiesBiostatisticsHumansLinear ModelsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignSample SizeTreatment Outcomecrossover trialDelta of Deltalinear combinationrelative efficiencyvariance

Identifiers

PMID28685497
PMCPMC5624826

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.