“Overpowered” studies due to GLs [Power / Sample Size]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2014-09-28 03:13 (4291 d 07:20 ago) – Posting: # 13603
Views: 20,254

Hi Khaoula,

❝ for minimum number of subject: it's not about possible significant treatment effect with low nuber of subject, low CV?


Likely. Let’s assume a 2×2 cross-over, T/R-ratio 0.95, n=12. For any CV ≤15.63% power will be >80%, for CV ≤13.39% >90%, for CV ≤9.85% >99%, etc. etc.
The lowest CVs I have seen so far were 5–7% (AUCs of valproic acid, methylphenidate). If you perform a study with a drug showing a CV of 6% in 12 subjects, power will be 99.99993%. In other words, a significant treatment effect is highly probable. See this presentation (slide 9): The red diamonds are sample sizes to reach at least 80% power. If you keep the sample size at 12 for low CVs, power will increase extremely (blue line).

BTW, the minimum sample size of 12 is arbitrary; some tables1,2 go down to 4.


  1. Diletti E, Hauschke D, Steinijans VW. Sample size determination for bioequivalence assessment by means of confidence intervals. Int J Clin Pharm Ther Toxicol. 1991;29(1):1–8. PMID 2004861.
  2. Hauschke D, Steinijans VW, Diletti E, Burke M. Sample Size Determination for Bioequivalence Assessment Using a Multiplicative Model. J Pharmacokin Biopharm. 1992;20(5):557–61. PMID 1287202.

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

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,655 posts in 4,993 threads, 1,572 registered users;
329 visitors (0 registered, 329 guests [including 21 identified bots]).
Forum time: 10:33 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The real struggle is not between the right and the left
but between the party of the thoughtful
and the party of the jerks.    Jimmy Wales

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