PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11764256

Tests against qualitative interaction: exact critical values and robust tests.

Abstract

Consider a study to evaluate treatment A with a placebo in two or more groups of patients. If treatment A is beneficial to one group of patients and harmful to another, then we say that there is qualitative interaction or crossover interaction between patient groups and the treatments. Gail and Simon (1985, Biometrics 41, 361-372) developed a large-sample procedure for this testing problem. Their test has received favorable coverage in the literature. In this article, we obtain corresponding exact finite sample results for normal error distribution and provide a table of critical values. The test statistic is similar to the familiar F-ratio, and its p-value is equal to a weighted sum of tail areas of F-distributions. The computations to implement this are simple. A simulation study shows that the exact critical values provided here for normal error distribution are preferable to the asymptotic critical values for a wide range of error distributions. We also develop tests that are power robust against long-tailed error distributions. Our robust test uses M-estimators instead of the least squares estimators. We show that the efficiency robustness of the M-estimator translates to power robustness of the corresponding test. Therefore, our robust tests are better if outliers are expected. A simulation study illustrates the substantial power advantages of our robust tests.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M J Silvapulle. 2001. Tests against qualitative interaction: exact critical values and robust tests.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341x.2001.01157.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Tree-structured gatekeeping tests in clinical trials with hierarchically ordered multiple objectives.

This paper discusses a new class of multiple testing procedures, tree-structured gatekeeping procedures, with clinical trial applications. These procedures arise in clinical trials with hierarchically ordered multiple objectives, for example, in the context of multiple dose-control tests with logical restrictions or analysis of multiple endpoints. The proposed approach is based on the principle of closed testing and generalizes the serial and parallel gatekeeping approaches developed by Westfall and Krishen (J. Statist. Planning Infer. 2001; 99:25-41) and Dmitrienko et al. (Statist. Med. 2003; 22:2387-2400). The proposed testing methodology is illustrated using a clinical trial with multiple endpoints (primary, secondary and tertiary) and multiple objectives (superiority and non-inferiority testing) as well as a dose-finding trial with multiple endpoints.

Antihypertensive Agents↗

Bayesian analysis of latent variable models with non-ignorable missing outcomes from exponential family.

To provide a comprehensive framework for analysing complex non-normal medical and biological data, we propose a Bayesian approach for a non-linear latent variable model with covariates, and non-ignorable missing data, under the exponential family of distributions. The non-ignorable missing mechanism is defined via a logistic regression model. Based on conjugate prior distributions, full conditional distributions for the implementation of Markov chain Monte Carlo methods in simulating observations from the joint posterior distribution are derived. These observations are used in computing the Bayesian estimates, as well as in implementing a path sampling procedure to evaluate the Bayes factor for model comparison. The proposed methods are illustrated using real data from a study on the non-adherence of hypertension patients.

Antihypertensive Agents↗

Revisiting the relation between change and initial value: a review and evaluation.

The relation between initial disease status and subsequent change following treatment has attracted great interest in clinical research. However, statisticians have repeatedly warned against correlating/regressing change with baseline due to two methodological concerns known as mathematical coupling and regression to the mean. Oldham's method and Blomqvist's formula are the two most often adopted methods to rectify these problems. The aims of this article are to review briefly the proposed solutions in the statistical and psychological literature, and to clarify the popular misconception that Blomqvist's formula is superior to Oldham's method. We argue that this misconception is due to a failure to recognize that the heterogeneity of individual responses to treatment is a source of regression to the mean in the analysis of the relation between change and initial value. Furthermore, we demonstrate how each method actually answers different research questions, and how confusion arises when this is not always understood.

Antihypertensive Agents↗