Assessing equivalence: An alternative to the use of difference tests for measuring disparities in vaccination coverage

American Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 156, Issue 11, 2002, Pages 1056-1061

  Barker, Lawrence E ^a   Luman, Elizabeth T ^a   McCauley, Mary M ^a   Chu, Susan Y ^a  

^a CENTERS FOR DIS CONTR AND PREV   (United States)

Author keywords

Epidemiologic methods; Ethnic groups; Hypothesis testing; Immunization; Statistics; Vaccination; Vaccines

Indexed keywords

DIPHTHERIA PERTUSSIS TETANUS VACCINE; HAEMOPHILUS INFLUENZAE TYPE B VACCINE; HEPATITIS B VACCINE; MEASLES MUMPS RUBELLA VACCINE; PERTUSSIS TOXIN; POLIOMYELITIS VACCINE; TETANUS TOXOID;

ASSESSMENT METHOD; HEALTH SERVICES; VACCINATION;

ARTICLE; CAUCASIAN; DATA ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA; ETHNIC GROUP; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; IMMUNIZATION; PUBLIC HEALTH; RACE DIFFERENCE; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VACCINATION;

CHILD, PRESCHOOL; DIPHTHERIA-TETANUS-PERTUSSIS VACCINE; EPIDEMIOLOGIC METHODS; ETHNIC GROUPS; HUMANS; IMMUNIZATION; THERAPEUTIC EQUIVALENCY;

EID: 0036891854     PISSN: 00029262     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwf149     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. US Public Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2010. Washington, DC: US Public Health Service, 2000.
2. Food and Drug Administration. Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Requirements. Code of Federal Regulations, title 21, vol 5, part 320 (21 CFR 320). Washington, DC: Food and Drug Administration, 1992.
3. Schuirmann DJ. A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1987;15: 657-80.
4. Farrington CP, Manning G. Test statistics and sample size formulae for comparing binomial trials with null hypothesis of non-zero difference or nonunity relative risk. Stat Med 1990;9: 1447-54.
5. Barker L, Rolka H, Rolka D, et al. Equivalence testing for binomial random variables: Which test to use? Am Stat 2001;55: 279-87.
6. Westlake WJ. Response to T. B. L. Kirkwood: Bioequivalence testing - A need to rethink. Biometrics 1981;37:589-94.
7. Huh MH. Equivalence testing as an alternative to significance testing. J Korean Stat Soc 1994;23:199-206.
8. Blackwelder WC. Proving the null hypothesis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1982;3:345-53.
9. Blackwelder WC. Equivalence trials. In: Armitage P, Colton T, eds. Encyclopedia of Biostatistics. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc, 1998.
10. Shulka R, Wang Q, Fulk F. Bioequivalence approach for whole effluent toxicity testing. Toxicol Chem 2000;19:169-74.
11. Atkinson WL, Orenstein WA, Krugman S. The resurgence of measles in the United States, 1989-1990. Annu Rev Med 1992; 43:451-63.
12. Luman ET, Barker LE, Simpson DM, et al. National, state, and urban-area vaccination-coverage levels among children aged 19-35 months, United States, 1999. Am J Prev Med 2001; 20(suppl 4):88-153.
13. Zell E, Ezzati-Rice T, Battaglia M, et al. National Immunization Survey: The methodology of a vaccination surveillance system. Public Health Rep 2000;115:65-77.
14. Smith PJ, Battaglia MP, Hugins VJ, et al. Overview of the sampling design and statistical methods used in the National Immunization Survey. Am J Prev Med 2001;20(suppl 4):17-24.
15. Smith PJ, Rao JN, Battaglia MP, et al. Compensating for Provider Nonresponse Using Response Propensities to Form Adjustment Cells: The National Immunization Survey. (Vital and health statistics, series 2, no. 133). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, 2001.
16. Shah BV, Barnwell BG, Bieler GS. SUDAAN Version 7.5 Manual. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute, 1997.