Abstract
Outlining some recently obtained results of Hu and Rosenberger [2003. Optimality, variability, power: evaluating response-adaptive randomization procedures for treatment comparisons. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 98, 671–678] and Chen [2006. The power of Efron's biased coin design. J. Statist. Plann. Inference 136, 1824–1835] on the relationship between sequential randomized designs and the power of the usual statistical procedures for testing the equivalence of two competing treatments, the aim of this paper is to provide theoretical proofs of the numerical results of Chen [2006. The power of Efron's biased coin design. J. Statist. Plann. Inference 136, 1824–1835]. Furthermore, we prove that the Adjustable Biased Coin Design [Baldi Antognini A., Giovagnoli, A., 2004. A new “biased coin design” for the sequential allocation of two treatments. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. C 53, 651–664] is uniformly more powerful than the other “coin” designs proposed in the literature for any sample size.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
