ArticlePharmaceutical research2021
A robust method for the assessment of average bioequivalence in the presence of outliers and skewness.
Article in Pharmaceutical research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Bayesian approach to pilot-pivotal trials for bioequivalence assessment.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeIn this paper, we propose a robust Bayesian method for the assessment of average bioequivalence based on data from conventional crossover studies. We evaluate and motivate empirically the need for robust methods in bioequivalence studies by comparing the results of robust and conventional statistical methods in a large data pool of bioequivalence studies.
methodsRobustness of the statistical methodology is achieved by replacing the normal distributions for residuals in the linear mixed model with skew-t distributions. In this way, the statistical model can accommodate skew and heavy-tailed data, particularly outliers, yielding robust statistical inference without the need for excluding outliers from the analysis. We performed a simulation study to investigate and compare the performance of the robust and conventional models.
resultsOur study shows that in some trials, the distribution of residuals is skew and heavy-tailed. In the presence of outliers, the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of geometric means tend to be narrower for the robust methods than for the conventional method. Our simulation study shows that the robust method has suitable frequentist properties and yields more precise confidence intervals and higher statistical power than the conventional maximum likelihood method when outliers are present in the data.
conclusionsAs a sensitivity analysis, we recommend the fit of robust models for handling outliers that are occasionally encountered in crossover design bioequivalence data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34676489What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.