Cited by 32Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques

The analysis of cross‐over trials with baseline measurements

Metcalfe, Chris·2010·Statistics in Medicine

Abstract

The statistical power of cross‐over trials can be increased by taking ‘baseline’ measurements of the outcome variable at the start of each treatment period. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), rather than analysis of change scores, takes best advantage of this. However, ANCOVA can give biased treatment effect estimates in observational studies with true baseline imbalance. While in truth balanced, chance baseline imbalance is possible in individual randomized cross‐over studies due to their typically small sample size. Although such chance imbalance does not cause biased estimation on average over repeated trials, this simulation study will aim to confirm the appropriateness of ANCOVA when faced with the analysis of data from an individual trial in which chance baseline imbalance is clearly apparent. Randomized cross‐over trials were simulated, varying in sample size and the pattern and strength of correlation between repeated measures. Estimates from ANCOVA, change scores, and post‐treatment difference were unbiased on average across each set of simulated data sets. ANCOVA and change scores could use baseline information to improve precision, but change scores could also reduce precision if baseline measures were uninformative. Change scores only were correlated with chance within‐subject baseline imbalance. All three estimators could be correlated with chance between‐subjects imbalance in the first period baseline measurements, the strongest associations being with the post‐treatment difference. Consistent results were obtained from a real data example. In conclusion, ANCOVA took best advantage of baseline measures to improve precision, and avoided bias in the widest set of circumstances with chance imbalance in those baseline measures. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/sim.3998

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Metcalfe, C.
Affiliations
University of Bristol (GB)
Corresponding author
Metcalfe, Chris
Venue
Statistics in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-12-16
Volume
29
Issue
30
Pages
3211-3218
ISSN
  • 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0258
OpenAlex
W2137430824
Cited by
32
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Statistics in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Bristol
  • Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children
  • Health Technology Assessment Programme
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Keywords
crossover trial, baseline measurement, covariance analysis, change scores, treatment effect estimation, baseline imbalance, estimation bias, statistical power, repeated measures correlation
MeSH terms
Child, Computer Simulation, Cystic Fibrosis, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Deoxyribonucleases, Forced Expiratory Volume, Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Cross-Over Studies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review