These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
3. Optimal and/or Efficient Two treatment Crossover Designs for Five Carryover Models. Gondaliya J; Divecha J Int J Biostat; 2018 Nov; 14(2):. PubMed ID: 30471221 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A simple method for the estimation of interaction bias in crossover studies. Cleophas TJ J Clin Pharmacol; 1990 Nov; 30(11):1036-40. PubMed ID: 2243151 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Analysis of the crossover design in the presence of residual effects. Lehmacher W Stat Med; 1991 Jun; 10(6):891-9. PubMed ID: 1876779 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A critique of recent research on the two-treatment crossover design. Fleiss JL Control Clin Trials; 1989 Sep; 10(3):237-43. PubMed ID: 2676339 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Optimal and efficient crossover designs under different assumptions about the carryover effects. Hedayat AS; Stufken J J Biopharm Stat; 2003 Aug; 13(3):519-28. PubMed ID: 12921398 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A Bayesian analysis of the two-period crossover design for clinical trials. Grieve AP Biometrics; 1985 Dec; 41(4):979-90. PubMed ID: 3830262 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Design issues in crossover trials involving patients with Parkinson's disease. Sparrow D; DeMolles D; Dubaz O; Durso R; Rosner B Front Neurol; 2023; 14():1197281. PubMed ID: 37670777 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The crossover experiment for clinical trials. Brown BW Biometrics; 1980 Mar; 36(1):69-79. PubMed ID: 7370374 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Design and analysis issues for crossover designs in phase I clinical studies. Boon PC; Roes KC J Biopharm Stat; 1999 Mar; 9(1):109-28. PubMed ID: 10091913 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Evaluation of alternative statistical models for crossover studies to demonstrate caffeine adjuvancy in the treatment of tension headache. Koch GG; Amara IA; MacMillan J J Biopharm Stat; 1994 Nov; 4(3):347-410. PubMed ID: 7881452 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Optimal and/or efficient three treatment crossover designs for five carryover models. Gondaliya J; Divecha J J Biopharm Stat; 2020 May; 30(3):445-461. PubMed ID: 31721628 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Multi-period crossover trials. Matthews JN Stat Methods Med Res; 1994 Dec; 3(4):383-405. PubMed ID: 7889228 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Crossover trials with a binary response: a powerful method despite the carryover effect. Cleophas TJ; van Lier HJ J Clin Pharmacol; 1996 Mar; 36(3):198-202. PubMed ID: 8690812 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Carryover negligibility and relevance in bioequivalence studies. Ocaña J; Sanchez O MP; Carrasco JL Pharm Stat; 2015; 14(5):400-8. PubMed ID: 26175204 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. On the role of Baseline measurements for crossover designs under the self and mixed carryover effects model. Liang Y; Carriere KC Biometrics; 2010 Mar; 66(1):140-8. PubMed ID: 19432775 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Crossover studies with continuous variables: power analysis. Cleophas TJ; Zwinderman AH Am J Ther; 2002; 9(1):69-73. PubMed ID: 11782821 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Optimal crossover designs in the presence of carryover effects. Laska E; Meisner M; Kushner HB Biometrics; 1983 Dec; 39(4):1087-91. PubMed ID: 6671121 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]