Sample size considerations for assessing vaccine consistency through equivalence

Drug Information Journal

Volumn 33, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 149-151

  Cheuvart, Brigitte ^a   Bollaerts, Anne ^a  

^a GLAXOSMITHKLINE BIOLOGICALS   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Consistency; Equivalence; Multiple comparison; Sample size; Vaccine

Indexed keywords

VACCINE;

ARTICLE; DRUG SCREENING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SAMPLE; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; VACCINATION;

EID: 0033042889     PISSN: 00928615     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/009286159903300117     Document Type: Article

References (7)

1. CBER. Guidance for Industry for the Evaluation of Combination Vaccines for Preventable Disease: Production, Testing, and Clinical Studies. Rockville, MD: U.S. Food and Drug Administration; April 1997.
2. Blackwelder WC. Proving the null hypothesis in clinical trials. Controll Clin Trials. 1982;3:345-353.
3. Dunnett CW, Tamhane AC. Multiple testing to establish superiority/equivalence of a new treatment compared with k standard treatments. Stat Med. 1997;16: 2489-2506.
4. Capizzi T, Zhang J. Testing the hypothesis that matters for multiple primary endpoints. Drug Inf J. 1996;30: 949-956.
5. Koch GG, Gansky SA. Statistical considerations for multiplicity in confirmatory protocols. Drug Inf J. 1996;30:523-534.
6. Dunnet CW, Gent M. An alternative to the use of two-sided tests in clinical trials. Stat Med. 1996;15: 1729-1738.
7. Elashoff JD. nQuery Advisor Version 2.0 User's Guide. Los Angeles CA: Dixon Associates; 1997.