• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Likelihood ratio and score tests to test the non-inferiority (or equivalence) of the odds ratio in a crossover study with binary outcomes.用于检验二元结局交叉研究中比值比的非劣效性(或等效性)的似然比检验和计分检验。
Stat Med. 2016 Sep 10;35(20):3471-81. doi: 10.1002/sim.6970. Epub 2016 Apr 19.
2
Test non-inferiority (and equivalence) based on the odds ratio under a simple crossover trial.基于简单交叉试验中的优势比检验非劣效性(和等效性)。
Stat Med. 2011 May 20;30(11):1230-42. doi: 10.1002/sim.4166. Epub 2011 Jan 12.
3
Comments on 'Likelihood ratio and score tests to test the non-inferiority (or equivalence) of the odds ratio in a crossover study with binary outcomes'.对《交叉研究中具有二元结局时用于检验比值比的非劣效性(或等效性)的似然比和计分检验》的评论
Stat Med. 2017 Jan 15;36(1):197-198. doi: 10.1002/sim.7086.
4
Tests for equivalence or non-inferiority for paired binary data.配对二元数据的等效性或非劣效性检验。
Stat Med. 2002 Jan 30;21(2):231-45. doi: 10.1002/sim.1012.
5
Tests for equivalence based on odds ratio for matched-pair design.基于匹配对设计的优势比的等效性检验。
J Biopharm Stat. 2005;15(6):889-901. doi: 10.1080/10543400500265561.
6
Permutation-based variance component test in generalized linear mixed model with application to multilocus genetic association study.广义线性混合模型中基于排列的方差分量检验及其在多位点基因关联研究中的应用
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015 Apr 22;15:37. doi: 10.1186/s12874-015-0030-1.
7
Exact sample-size determination in testing non-inferiority under a simple crossover trial.在简单交叉试验下检验非劣效性时的确切样本量确定。
Pharm Stat. 2012 Mar-Apr;11(2):129-34. doi: 10.1002/pst.506. Epub 2012 Jan 10.
8
Sample size determination for assessing equivalence based on proportion ratio under a randomized trial with non-compliance and missing outcomes.在存在不依从和结局缺失的随机试验中,基于比例比评估等效性的样本量确定。
Stat Med. 2008 Jan 15;27(1):47-67. doi: 10.1002/sim.3030.
9
Sample size considerations in active-control non-inferiority trials with binary data based on the odds ratio.基于比值比的二分类数据活性对照非劣效性试验中的样本量考量
Stat Methods Med Res. 2015 Aug;24(4):453-61. doi: 10.1177/0962280214520729. Epub 2014 Feb 2.
10
Active-control trials with binary data: a comparison of methods for testing superiority or non-inferiority using the odds ratio.二元数据的活性对照试验:使用比值比检验优效性或非劣效性的方法比较
Stat Med. 2008 Feb 10;27(3):353-70. doi: 10.1002/sim.2975.

引用本文的文献

1
Effect of neighborhood and individual-level socioeconomic factors on breast cancer screening adherence in a multi-ethnic study.社区和个体社会经济因素对多民族研究中乳腺癌筛查依从性的影响。
BMC Public Health. 2024 Jan 2;24(1):63. doi: 10.1186/s12889-023-17252-9.
2
Effect of Neighborhood and Individual-Level Socioeconomic Factors on Colorectal Cancer Screening Adherence.社区和个体社会经济因素对结直肠癌筛查依从性的影响。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Apr 21;18(9):4398. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18094398.
3
Evidence That Blunted CD4 T-Cell Responses Underlie Deficient Protective Antibody Responses to Influenza Vaccines in Repeatedly Vaccinated Human Subjects.证据表明,在反复接种流感疫苗的人体中,CD4 T 细胞反应迟钝是保护性抗体反应缺陷的基础。
J Infect Dis. 2020 Jun 29;222(2):273-277. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiz433.

本文引用的文献

1
Test non-inferiority (and equivalence) based on the odds ratio under a simple crossover trial.基于简单交叉试验中的优势比检验非劣效性(和等效性)。
Stat Med. 2011 May 20;30(11):1230-42. doi: 10.1002/sim.4166. Epub 2011 Jan 12.
2
Bias of two one-sided tests procedures in assessment of bioequivalence.生物等效性评估中双单侧检验程序的偏差。
Stat Med. 1995 Apr 30;14(8):853-61. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780140813.

用于检验二元结局交叉研究中比值比的非劣效性(或等效性)的似然比检验和计分检验。

Likelihood ratio and score tests to test the non-inferiority (or equivalence) of the odds ratio in a crossover study with binary outcomes.

作者信息

Li Xiaochun, Li Huilin, Jin Man, D Goldberg Judith

机构信息

Division of Biostatistics, Department of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, New York, U.S.A.

Late Development Statistics, Merck Research Laboratories, Rahway, New Jersey, U.S.A.

出版信息

Stat Med. 2016 Sep 10;35(20):3471-81. doi: 10.1002/sim.6970. Epub 2016 Apr 19.

DOI:10.1002/sim.6970
PMID:27095359
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4961621/
Abstract

We consider the non-inferiority (or equivalence) test of the odds ratio (OR) in a crossover study with binary outcomes to evaluate the treatment effects of two drugs. To solve this problem, Lui and Chang (2011) proposed both an asymptotic method and a conditional method based on a random effects logit model. Kenward and Jones (1987) proposed a likelihood ratio test (LRTM ) based on a log linear model. These existing methods are all subject to model misspecification. In this paper, we propose a likelihood ratio test (LRT) and a score test that are independent of model specification. Monte Carlo simulation studies show that, in scenarios considered in this paper, both the LRT and the score test have higher power than the asymptotic and conditional methods for the non-inferiority test; the LRT, score, and asymptotic methods have similar power, and they all have higher power than the conditional method for the equivalence test. When data can be well described by a log linear model, the LRTM has the highest power among all the five methods (LRTM , LRT, score, asymptotic, and conditional) for both non-inferiority and equivalence tests. However, in scenarios for which a log linear model does not describe the data well, the LRTM has the lowest power for the non-inferiority test and has inflated type I error rates for the equivalence test. We provide an example from a clinical trial that illustrates our methods. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

摘要

我们考虑在具有二元结局的交叉研究中对优势比(OR)进行非劣效性(或等效性)检验,以评估两种药物的治疗效果。为解决此问题,Lui和Chang(2011)基于随机效应logit模型提出了一种渐近方法和一种条件方法。Kenward和Jones(1987)基于对数线性模型提出了似然比检验(LRTM)。这些现有方法都存在模型设定错误的问题。在本文中,我们提出了一种与模型设定无关的似然比检验(LRT)和得分检验。蒙特卡罗模拟研究表明,在本文所考虑的情形下,对于非劣效性检验,LRT和得分检验的功效均高于渐近方法和条件方法;对于等效性检验,LRT、得分检验和渐近方法的功效相似,且它们的功效均高于条件方法。当数据能用对数线性模型很好地描述时,对于非劣效性检验和等效性检验,LRTM在所有五种方法(LRTM、LRT、得分检验、渐近方法和条件方法)中功效最高。然而,在对数线性模型不能很好描述数据的情形下,对于非劣效性检验,LRTM的功效最低,对于等效性检验,其第一类错误率会膨胀。我们提供了一个来自临床试验的例子来说明我们的方法。版权所有© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.