The construction of multi-factor crossover designs in animal husbandry studies

Pharmaceutical Statistics

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 179-194

  Bate, Simon T ^a   Boxall, J ^a  

^a GLAXOSMITHKLINE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Balance; Carry over; Crossover; Orthogonality; Universal optimality

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; ANIMAL HUSBANDRY; ARTICLE; BED; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOG; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; FEMALE; MALE; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; NONHUMAN; ORTHOGONAL ROTATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY; ANIMALS; CROSS-OVER STUDIES; DOGS; DRUG INDUSTRY; FEMALE; MALE; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 52649162988     PISSN: 15391604     EISSN: 15391612     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pst.288     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Boxall J, Heath S, Bate ST, Brautigam J. Modern concepts of socialisation for dogs, implications for their behaviour, welfare and use in scientific procedures. ATLA 2004; 32:1-13.
2. Rumble R, Saville M, Simmons L, Parker D, Thripp G, Farr J. The preference of the common marmoset for nest boxes made from three different materials wood, plastic, metal. Animal Technology and Welfare 2005; 4(3):185-187.
3. Jones B, Kenward MG. Design and analysis of crossover trials (2nd edn). Chapman & Hall/CRC Press: London, 2003.
4. Fletcher DJ, John JA. Changeover designs and factorial structure. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 1985; 47:117-124.
5. Lewis SM, Russell KG. Crossover designs in the presence of carry-over effects from two factors. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series C 1998; 47:379-392.
6. Godolphin JD. Avoidance of disconnected experimental designs. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series C 2004; 53:133-147. 7 Senn SJ. Crossover trials in clinical research (2nd edn). Wiley: Chichester, 2002.
7. Senn SJ. Is the 'simple carry-over' model useful? Statistics in Medicine 1992; 11:715-726.
8. Russell KG, Lewis SM. Efficient cross-over designs allowing a check on the assumption that direct and carry-over effects do not interact. Communications in Statistics Theory and Methods 1997; 26:2835-2854.
9. Kunert J, Stufken J. Optimal crossover designs in a model with self and mixed carry-over effects. Journal of the American Statistical Association 2002; 97:898-906.
10. Hedayat AS, Stufken J. Optimal and efficient crossover designs under different assumptions about the carry-over effects. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 2003; 13:519-528.
11. Bate S, Jones B. The construction of nearly balanced and nearly strongly balanced uniform crossover designs. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 2006; 136:3248-3267.
12. Yuan Y, Zhou J. Cost-efficient higher-order cross-over designs for two treatment clinical trials. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2005; 4:245-252.
13. Senn SJ. Carry-over in cross-over trials in bioequivalence: theoretical concerns and empirical evidence. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2004; 3:133-142.
14. Colbourn C, Dinitz J. Mutually orthogonal Latin squares: a brief survey of constructions. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 2001; 95:9-48.
15. Williams EJ. Experimental designs balanced for the estimation of residual effects of treatments. Australian Journal of Scientific Research 1949; 2:149-168.
16. Stufken J. Optimal crossover designs. In handbook of statistics 13: design and analysis of experiments, Ghosh S, Rao CR (eds). North-Holland: Amsterdam; 1996; 63-90.
17. Higham J. Row-complete Latin squares of every composite order exist. Journal of Combinatorial Designs 1998; 6:63-77.
18. Russell KG. The construction of good change-over designs when there are fewer units than treatments. Biometrika 1991; 78:305-313.
19. Bailey RA. Quasi-complete Latin squares: construction and randomization. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 1984; 46:323-334.
20. Euler L. Recherches sur une nouvelle espèce de quarrés magiques. Verhandlingen uitgegeven door het Zeeuwsch Genootschap der Wetenschappen te Vlissingen 1782; 9:85-239.
21. Tarry G. Le probleme des 36 officiers. Association Française pour L'Avancement des Sciences, Comptes Rendus 1900; 29:170-203.
22. Bose RC, Shrikhande SS. On the falsity of Euler's conjecture about the non-existence of two orthogonal Latin squares of order 4t + 2. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 1959; 45:734-737.
23. Stinson DR. A short proof of the nonexistence of a pair of orthogonal Latin squares of order six. Journal of Combinatorial Theory A 1984; 36:373-376.
24. Bedford D, Whitaker RM. Sets of mutually quasi-orthogonal Latin squares. Journal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing 2000; 32:299-310.
25. Bussemaker FC, Haemers WH, Spence E. The search for pseudo orthogonal Latin squares of order six. Designs, Codes and Cryptography 2000; 21:77-82.
26. Raghavarao D, Shrikhande SS, Shrikhande MS. Incidence matrices and inequalities for combinatorial designs. Journal of Combinatorial Designs 2002; 10:17-26.