ArticleJournal of applied statistics2024
A Bayesian approach for evaluating equivalence over multiple groups, and comparison with frequentist tost.
Article in Journal of applied statistics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Manufacturing and testing of pharmaceutical products frequently occur in multiple facilities within a company's network. It is of interest to demonstrate equivalence among the alternative testing/manufacturing facilities to ensure product consistency and quality regardless of the facility where it was manufactured/tested. In the Frequentist framework, equivalence testing is well established when comparing two labs or manufacturing facilities; however, when considering more than two labs or production sites, the Frequentist approach may not always offer appropriate or interpretable estimates for demonstrating equivalence among all of them simultaneously. This paper demonstrates the utility of Bayesian methods to the equivalence assessment of multiple groups means, with a comparison against traditional Frequentist methods. We conclude that a Bayesian strategy is very useful for addressing the problem of multi-group equivalence. While it is not our intention to argue that Bayesian methods should always replace Frequentist ones, we show that among the advantages of a Bayesian analysis is that it provides a more nuanced understanding of the degree of similarity among sites than the hypothesis testing underpinning the Frequentist approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.