Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2009 Apr 30:10:27.
doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-10-27.

Design, analysis, and presentation of crossover trials

Edward J Mills  1 , An-Wen Chan, Ping Wu, Andy Vail, Gordon H Guyatt, Douglas G Altman
Affiliations
Review

Design, analysis, and presentation of crossover trials

Edward J Mills et al. Trials. .

Abstract

Objective: Although crossover trials enjoy wide use, standards for analysis and reporting have not been established. We reviewed methodological aspects and quality of reporting in a representative sample of published crossover trials.

Methods: We searched MEDLINE for December 2000 and identified all randomized crossover trials. We abstracted data independently, in duplicate, on 14 design criteria, 13 analysis criteria, and 14 criteria assessing the data presentation.

Results: We identified 526 randomized controlled trials, of which 116 were crossover trials. Trials were drug efficacy (48%), pharmacokinetic (28%), and nonpharmacologic (30%). The median sample size was 15 (interquartile range 8-38). Most (72%) trials used 2 treatments and had 2 periods (64%). Few trials reported allocation concealment (17%) or sequence generation (7%). Only 20% of trials reported a sample size calculation and only 31% of these considered pairing of data in the calculation. Carry-over issues were addressed in 29% of trial's methods. Most trials reported and defended a washout period (70%). Almost all trials (93%) tested for treatment effects using paired data and also presented details on by-group results (95%). Only 29% presented CIs or SE so that data could be entered into a meta-analysis.

Conclusion: Reports of crossover trials frequently omit important methodological issues in design, analysis, and presentation. Guidelines for the conduct and reporting of crossover trials might improve the conduct and reporting of studies using this important trial design.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart of included studies.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Mills EJ, Kelly S, Wu P, Guyatt GH. Epidemiology and reporting of randomized trials employing re-randomization of patient groups: a systematic survey. Contemp Clin Trials. 2007;28:268–75. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2006.09.002. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Louis TA, Lavori PW, Bailar JC, Polansky M. Crossover and self-controlled designs in clinical research. NEJM. 1984;310:24–31. - PubMed
    1. Elbourne DR, Altman DG, Higgins JPT, Curtin F, Worthington HV, Vail A. Meta-analyses involving cross-over trials: methodological issues. Int J Epid. 2002;31:140–149. doi: 10.1093/ije/31.1.140. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Maclure M. The case-crossover design: a method for studying transient effects on the risk of acute events. Am J Epidemiol . 1991;133:144–153. - PubMed
    1. Brown BW., Jr The crossover experiment for clinical trials. Biometrics. 1980;36:69–79. doi: 10.2307/2530496. - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms