Statisticians and pharmacokineticists: What they can still learn from each other

Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics

Volumn 88, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 328-334

  Senn, S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL PRACTICE; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG RESEARCH; DRUG SYNTHESIS; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; PHARMACODYNAMICS; PHARMACOKINETICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; DRUG DESIGN; HUMANS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MODELS, STATISTICAL; STATISTICS AS TOPIC;

EID: 77955922547     PISSN: 00099236     EISSN: 15326535     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/clpt.2010.128     Document Type: Review

References (53)

1. Sheiner, L.B. The intellectual health of clinical drug evaluation. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 50, 4-9 (1991)
2. Senn, S.J. statisticians and pharmacokineticists: what can they learn from each other? In COST B1 Medicine. The Population Approach: Measuring and Managing Variability in Response, Concentration and Dose (eds. Aarons, L. et al.) 139-146 (European Commission Directorate-General science, Research and Development, Geneva, switzerland, 1997).
3. Tukey, J. The future of data analysis. Ann. Math. Stat. 33, 1-67 (1962).
4. Edwards, D. On model prespecifcation in confrmatory randomized studies. Stat. Med. 18, 771-785 (1999).
5. Tsiatis, A.A., Davidian, M., Zhang, M. & Lu, X. Covariate adjustment for two-sample treatment comparisons in randomized clinical trials: a principled yet fexible approach. Stat. Med. 27, 4658-4677 (2008).
6. Mantel, N. Evaluation of survival data and two new rank order statistics arising in its consideration. Cancer Chemother. Rep. 50, 163-170 (1966).
7. Peto, R. & Peto, J. Asymptotically efcient rank invariant test procedures (with discussion). J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A 135, 185-207 (1972).
8. Cox, D.R. Regression models and life-tables (with discussion). J. R. Stat. Soc. S e r. B 34, 187-220 (1972).
9. Collett, D. Modelling Survival Data in Medical Research (Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 2003).
10. Schumacher, M., Olschewski, M. & Schmoor, C. The impact of heterogeneity on the comparison of survival times. Stat. Med. 6, 773-784 (1987).
11. Fleiss, J.L. Letter to the editor. Biometrics 42, 449-450 (1986).
12. Fleiss, J.L. A critique of recent research on the two-treatment crossover design. Control. Clin. Trials 10, 237-243 (1989).
13. Senn, S.J. Is the 'simple carry-over' model useful? Stat. Med. 11, 715-726 (1992).
14. Senn, S.J. At cross-purposes: cross-over trials in theory and practice. Int. Chinese Stat. Assoc. Bull. 50-53 (2005).
15. Senn, S. Cross-over trials in statistics in medicine: the frst '25' years. Stat. Med. 25, 3430-3442 (2006).
16. Sheiner, L.B., Hashimoto, Y. & Beal, S.L. A simulation study comparing designs for dose ranging. Stat. Med. 10, 303-321 (1991).
17. Fidler, F., Geof, C., Mark, B. & Neil, T. Statistical reform in medicine, psychology and ecology. J. Socio. Econ. 33, 615-630 (2004).
18. Gardner, M.J. & Altman, D.G. Confdence intervals rather than p values: estimation rather than hypothesis testing. Br. Med. J. (Clin. Res. Ed). 292, 746-750 (1986).
19. Arbuthnot, J. An argument for Divine providence taken from the constant regularity observ'd in the births of both sexes. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A 27, 186-190 (1710).
20. Shoesmith, E. & Arbuthnot, J. In Leading Personalities in Statistical Science (eds. Johnson, N.L., & Kotz, S.) 7-10 (Wiley, New York, 1997).
21. Bernoulli, D. Sur le probleme proposé pour la seconde fois par l'Academie Royale des Sciences de Paris. In Die Werke von Daniel Bernoulli Vol. 3 (ed. speiser, D.) 303-326 (Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, switzerland, 1987)
22. Senn, S.J. Dicing With Death (Cambridge University press, Cambridge, UK, 2003).
23. Senn, S. two cheers for p-values? J. Epidemiol. Biostat. 6, 193-204; discussion 205 (2001)
24. Hsu, J.C. Multiple Comparisons Theory and Methods (Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 1996).
25. Senn, S. & Bretz, F. Power and sample size when multiple endpoints are considered. Pharm. Stat. 6, 161-170 (2007).
26. Fedorov, V., Mannino, F. & Zhang, R. Consequences of dichotomization. Pharm. Stat. 8, 50-61 (2009).
27. Senn, S. & Julious, S. Measurement in clinical trials: a neglected issue for statisticians? Stat. Med. 28, 3189-3209 (2009).
28. Senn, S.J. Disappointing dichotomies. Pharm. Stat. 2, 239-240 (2003).
29. Senn, S.J. three things every medical writer should know about statistics. The Write Stuf 18, 159-162 (2009).
30. Atkinson, A.C & Donev, A.N. Optimum Experimental Designs (Oxford University press, Oxford, UK, 1992).
31. Bailey, R.A. Designs for dose-escalation trials with quantitative responses. Stat. Med. 28, 3721-3738 (2009).
32. Senn, S. Commentary on 'Designs for dose-escalation trials with quantitative responses'. Stat. Med. 28, 3754-8; discussion 3759 (2009).
33. Mentre, F., Mallet, A. & Baccar, D. Optimal design in random-efects regression models. Biometrika 84, 429-442 (1997).
34. Diggle, P., Liang, K.Y. & Zeger, S.L. Analysis of Longitudinal Data (Clarendon press, Oxford, UK, 1994).
35. Burman, C.-F. & Senn, S.J. Examples of option value in drug development. Pharm. Stat. 2 (2003).
36. Burman, C.-F., Grieve, A.P. & Senn, S.J. Decision Analysis in Drug Development. In Pharmaceutical Statistics Using SAS: A Practical Guide (eds. Dmitrienko, A., Chuang-stein, C. and Agostino, R.) 385-428 (sAs, Cary, NC, 2007).
37. Lindley, D.V. Decision analysis and bioequivalence trials. Stat. Sci. 13, 136-141 (1998).
38. Senn, S. Statistical issues in bioequivalence. Stat. Med. 20, 2785-2799 (2001).
39. Lindley, D.V. The choice of sample size. Statistician 46, 129-138 (1997).
40. Gittins, J. & Pezeshk, H. A behavioural Bayes method for determining the size of a clinical trial. Drug Inf. J. 34, 355-363 (2000).
41. O'Hagan, A., Stevens, J.W. & Campbell, M.J. Assurance in clinical trial design. Pharm. Stat. 4, 187-201 (2005).
42. Bacchetti, P., McCulloch, C.E. & Segal, M.R. simple, defensible sample sizes based on cost efciency. Biometrics 64, 577-585; discussion 586 (2008).
43. Gittins, J. & Pezeshk, H. How large should a clinical trial be? J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. S D Statistician 49, 177-187 (2000).
44. Pezeshk, H. & Gittins, J. A fully Bayesian approach to calculating sample sizes for clinical trials with binary responses. Drug Inf. J. 36, 143-150 (2002).
45. Gittins, J.C. & Pezeshk, H. A decision theoretic approach to sample size determination in clinical trials. J. Biopharm. Stat. 12, 535-551 (2002). (Pubitemid 35439798)
46. Senn, S.J. Individual therapy: new dawn or false dawn. Drug Inf. J. 35, 1479-1494 (2001).
47. Sheiner, L.B., Beal, S.L. & Sambol, N.C. study designs for dose-ranging. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 46, 63-77 (1989).
48. Senn, S.J. & Hildebrand, H. Crossover trials, degrees of freedom, the carryover problem and its dual. Stat. Med. 10, 1361-1374 (1991).
49. Mcpherson, K. The Cochrane Lecture. The best and the enemy of the good: randomised controlled trials, uncertainty, and assessing the role of patient choice in medical decision making. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 48, 6-15 (1994).
50. Rittenhouse, B.E. Exorcising protocol-induced spirits: making the clinical trial relevant for economics. Med. Decis. Making 17, 331-339 (1997).
51. Senn, S. Controversies concerning randomization and additivity in clinical trials. Stat. Med. 23, 3729-3753 (2004)
52. Wootton, D. Bad Medicine: Doctors Doing Harm Since Hippocrates (Oxford University press, Oxford, UK, 2006)
53. Working party on statistical Issues in First-in-Man studies. statistical issues in frst-in-man studies. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A 170, 517-579 (2007).