Planning and analysis of cross-over trials in infertility

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 29, Issue 30, 2010, Pages 3203-3210

  Makubate, Boikanyo ^a   Senn, Stephen ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cross over trial; Infertility; Mantel Haenszel; Missing data; Parallel group trial

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BINOMIAL DISTRIBUTION; CLINICAL STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; INFERTILITY; INTRAUTERINE INSEMINATION; MANTEL HAENSZEL TEST; METHODOLOGY; NORMAL DISTRIBUTION; PARALLEL DESIGN; RANDOMIZATION; SEXUAL INTERCOURSE; SIMULATION;

COITUS; CROSS-OVER STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFERTILITY; INSEMINATION, ARTIFICIAL; MALE; OVULATION INDUCTION; PREGNANCY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 78650248070     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.3981     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Daya S. Differences between crossover and parallel study designs-debate. Fertility and Sterility 1999; 71:771-772.
2. Cohlen BJ, Velde ERT, Looman CWN, Eijckemans R, Habbema JDF. Crossover or parallel design in infertility trials? The discussion continues. Fertility and Sterility 1998; 70:40-45.
3. Vail A, Gardener E. Common statistical errors in the design and analysis of subfertility trials. Human Reproduction 2003; 18:1000-1004.
4. Munkelwitz R, Gilbert BR. Are boxer shorts really better? A critical analysis of the role of underwear type in male subfertility. Journal of Urology 1998; 160:1329-1333.
5. Jones B, Kenward M. Design and Analysis of Cross-over Trials. Chapman & Hall: London, 2003.
6. Senn SJ. Cross-over Trials in Clinical Research. Wiley: Chichester, 2002.
7. Dias S, McNamee R, Vail A. Bias in frequently reported analyses of subfertility trials. Statistics in Medicine 2008; 27:5605-5619.
8. Gregoriou O, Vitoratos N, Papadias C, Konidaris S, Gargaropoulos A, Rizos D. Pregnancy rates in gonadotrophin stimulated cycles with timed intercourse or intrauterine insemination for the treatment of male subfertility. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 1996; 64:213-216.
9. Daya S. Pitfalls in the design and analysis of efficacy trials in subfertility. Human Reproduction 2003; 18:1005-1009.
10. Cohlen BJ, te Velde ER, van Kooij RJ, Looman CW, Habbema JD. Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation and intrauterine insemination for treating male subfertility: a controlled study. Human Reproduction 1998; 13:1553-1558.
11. Mantel N, Haenszel W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1959; 22:719-748.
12. Nason M, Follmann D. Design and analysis of crossover trials for absorbing binary endpoints. Biometrics 2009. DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2009.01358.x.
13. Robins J, Breslow N, Greenland S. Estimators of the Mantel-Haenszel variance consistent in both sparse data and large-strata limiting models. Biometrics 1986; 42:311-323.
14. Ezzet F, Whitehead J. A random effects model for binary data from cross-over trials. Applied Statistics 1992; 41:117-126.
15. Senn SJ. Crossover design. In Encyclopedia of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, Chow SC, Liu JP (eds). Marcel Dekker: New York, 2000; 142-149.
16. Makubate B. The place of crossover designs in infertility trials. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, 2009.
17. Lee Y, Nelder JA. Hierarchical generalized linear models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B-Methodological 1996; 58:619-656.
18. Lee Y, Nelder JA. Conditional and marginal models another view. Statistical Science 2004; 19:219-228.
19. Senn SJ. Conditional and marginal models: another view-comments and rejoinders. Statistical Science 2004; 19:228-238.
20. Agresti A. Categorical Data Analysis. Wiley: New York, 1998.