Helmut
★★★
avatar
Homepage
Vienna, Austria,
2011-02-07 20:05
(4819 d 19:34 ago)

Posting: # 6574
Views: 5,961
 

 Post hoc power [Power / Sample Size]

Dear all,

at the recent workshop in Mumbai I struggled (again) to deliver the message that a posteriori power does not make sense.

In the aftermath of this post on Potvin et al.'s paper I found a sentence soothing my soul:

We stop here and conclude BE, irrespective of the fact that we have not yet achieved the desired power of 80% (power = 66.3%).


Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes
d_labes
★★★

Berlin, Germany,
2011-02-08 10:18
(4819 d 05:21 ago)

@ Helmut
Posting: # 6580
Views: 5,034
 

 The battle is not over

Dear Helmut,

I recently had a question from an author of a paper in a medical journal. He had stated "A Student's t-test of ... :blahblah: give a non-significant result."

Statement of a reviewer to that sentence: "A power analysis is expected." [sic !]

Regards,

Detlew
Helmut
★★★
avatar
Homepage
Vienna, Austria,
2011-02-08 12:27
(4819 d 03:13 ago)

@ d_labes
Posting: # 6588
Views: 5,108
 

 Fight the good fight

Dear D. Labes!

❝ [...] "A power analysis is expected." [sic !]



Hurrah! Maybe the reviewer should have been guided to CONSORT, especially the download section. The 2010 guideline was published in leading journals - maybe he/she doesn't read? Quote from Item 7 (Sample size):

There is little merit in a post hoc calculation of statistical power using the results of a trial; the power is then appropriately indicated by confidence intervals.


See also this nice discussion in the British Medical Journal after CONSORT 2001 was published.

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes
earlybird
☆    

2011-02-08 12:20
(4819 d 03:19 ago)

@ Helmut
Posting: # 6586
Views: 5,122
 

 Post hoc power

Dear HS,

you should take into considerations a statistic course for regulators ;-). As long as the regulators ask for the a-posteriori-power, you should be able to calculate it :confused:.

Kind reagards,
earlybird
Helmut
★★★
avatar
Homepage
Vienna, Austria,
2011-02-08 13:22
(4819 d 02:18 ago)

@ earlybird
Posting: # 6589
Views: 5,159
 

 Post hoc power

Dear earlybird!

❝ you should take into considerations a statistic course for regulators ;-).


Well, I was asked by regulators from Austria and Saudi Arabia a good while ago. They were shocked by the fee. :-D
I performed a workshop in Turkey; was anybody of you asked for power (in other words, did I succeed)?

❝ As long as the regulators ask for the a-posteriori-power, …


Do they still? Which ones? I know that this was a hobby of regulators from Greece more than a decade ago. The last request I have seen came form Malaysia. They were asking for ‘Two One Sided t-Tests Total Probability’, ‘Anderson-Hauck Procedure p-value’, ‘Power of ANOVA at 20%’. By coincidence (?) these are the last lines of WinNonlin’s standard output. ;-)

❝ … you should be able to calculate it :confused:.


PowerTOST!

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes
Dr_Dan
★★  

Germany,
2011-02-08 15:31
(4819 d 00:08 ago)

@ Helmut
Posting: # 6591
Views: 4,988
 

 Post hoc power

Dear Helmut
dear all
some time ago I had to answer the same question but since I am not a statistician I pointed out the following which is in my opinion the assessor's concern:
The risk for the patient that the study might show a false positive result is always 5%. The power only describes the risk for the sponsor to fail. Right?
LG
Dan

Kind regards and have a nice day
Dr_Dan
Helmut
★★★
avatar
Homepage
Vienna, Austria,
2011-02-08 15:34
(4819 d 00:06 ago)

@ Dr_Dan
Posting: # 6592
Views: 5,038
 

 Post hoc power

Dear Dan!

❝ The risk for the patient that the study might show a false positive result is always 5%. The power only describes the risk for the sponsor to fail. Right?


Right.

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes
d_labes
★★★

Berlin, Germany,
2011-02-08 16:17
(4818 d 23:23 ago)

@ Helmut
Posting: # 6595
Views: 5,023
 

 Risk nitpicking

Dear Dan, dear Helmut!

❝ ❝ The risk for the patient that the study might show a false positive result is always 5%. Right?


❝ Right.


For answering regulatory concerns it is the best answer I know :cool:.

But let us keep in mind the so called "test size" of the statistical test method used.

In many cases the test method assures an size <= 0.05, thus the test may become conservative under circumstances. Then the patient's risk is at maximum 5% and otherwise <5%.

In case of "liberal" test methods the patients risk may become >5%. Such test methods should of course not used. But sometimes you have no choice ...

Remember f.i. Potvin et.al. methods for evaluating 2-stage designs which have been chosen under the assumption that 5.2% alpha inflation are allowed, considered as negligible.
Or remember the FDA scaled ABE approach according to the progesterone guidance which leads to an alpha inflation up to 6% - 7%. See here.

Regards,

Detlew
UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,987 posts in 4,824 threads, 1,665 registered users;
91 visitors (0 registered, 91 guests [including 6 identified bots]).
Forum time: 16:40 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The only way to comprehend what mathematicians mean by Infinity
is to contemplate the extent of human stupidity.    Voltaire

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5