Yes, but why? [Power / Sample Size]

posted by DavidManteigas – Portugal, 2017-12-28 16:59  – Posting: # 18114
Views: 18,872

Hi all,

I think the answer to the first question of this post is "because you were very pessimistic on your assumptions regarding sample size" which is something very common in BABE trials (at least, this is my perception).

In this case, given your simulations above and the expected probability of approximately 12% of the studies having power greater then 95% having in consideration the initial assumptions, post hoc power means nothing. But if you had 100 studies instead and 90% of the had >95% power although the sample size was calculated assuming expected power of 80%, some questions and conclusions might be drawn from those results, don't you think? From my understanding of the initial question, this was the case found. So I think that they should start by reviewing how they define their assumptions for the sample size, namely why they assume GMR=1.10 instead of the "normal" 0.95/1.05.


Complete thread:

 Mix view
Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum |  Admin contact
19,487 posts in 4,135 threads, 1,336 registered users;
online 10 (0 registered, 10 guests [including 5 identified bots]).
Forum time (Europe/Vienna): 18:56 CEST

If debugging is the process of removing bugs,
then programming must be the process of putting them in.    Edsger W. Dijkstra

BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz