1989Annals of Internal MedicineRequires access

The Two-Period Crossover Design in Medical Research

John R. Woods, James G. Williams, Morton Tavel

Open publisher page 139 citations

Abstract

The crossover design has enjoyed popularity with many clinical researchers, but has been criticized by biostatisticians. The central problem is the inability to derive an unbiased estimate of the treatment effect when differences occur because of the different sequences in which treatments are applied. This problem can be traced to a deficiency of the logic of the crossover arrangement itself. Factors that can invalidate the findings of a crossover trial include nonuniform pharmacologic and psychologic carry-over effects, failure to return patients to their baseline state before the crossover, nonuniform changes in the patients over time, and the use of time-dependent response measures. When these problems can be anticipated, a parallel-groups design should be used instead of a crossover trial.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The crossover design has enjoyed popularity with many clinical researchers, but has been criticized by biostatisticians. The central problem is the inability to derive an unbiased estimate of the treatment effect when differences occur because of the different sequences in which treatments are applied. This problem can be traced to a deficiency of the logic of the crossover arrangement itself. Factors that can invalidate the findings of a crossover trial include nonuniform pharmacologic and psychologic carry-over effects, failure to return patients to their baseline state before the crossover, nonuniform changes in the patients over time, and the use of time-dependent response measures. When these problems can be anticipated, a parallel-groups design should be used instead of a crossover trial.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 139 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The crossover design has enjoyed popularity with many clinical researchers, but has been criticized by biostatisticians. The central problem is the inability to derive an unbiased estimate of the treatment effect when differences occur because of the different sequences in which treatments are applied. This problem can be traced to a deficiency of the logic of the crossover arrangement itself. Factors that can invalidate the findings of a crossover trial include nonuniform pharmacologic and psychologic carry-over effects, failure to return patients to their baseline state before the crossover, nonuniform changes in the patients over time, and the use of time-dependent response measures. When these problems can be anticipated, a parallel-groups design should be used instead of a crossover trial.

Key concepts: Crossover, Crossover study, Medicine, Popularity, Clinical trial, Computer science, Internal medicine, Alternative medicine

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The Two-Period Crossover Design in Medical Research — Research Paper | ScholarLens