Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum • Hypotheses in non-inferiority trials

Hypotheses in non-inferiority trials [Power / Sample Size]

posted by The Outlaw Torn – Europe, 2015-06-17 13:35 (4023 d 13:12 ago) – Posting: # 14963
Views: 13,352

I can't seem to be able to respond to Mittyri (the system logs me out when I press the respond button), so I'll respond to Mittyri here via responding to myself.

Thank you, Mittyri. I've printed it out and browsed it. Will grab another coffee and re-read it with my full attention.

In my research, I keep running into statements like this: Type II error has heightened importance in non-inferiority trials and must be managed. If sample size is inadequate, then a non-inferiority trial may lead to a false claim of a drug being non-inferior to a comparator when in fact it is worse.

These types of statements seems to undermine the argument on post hoc power—they seem to claim that post hoc power is meaningful. Am I misinterpreting these kind of statements? Are they valid?

Thank you,
Outlaw Torn

Edit: Strange – I moved your post in the database. [Helmut]

Complete thread:

The power of post hoc power The Outlaw Torn 2015-05-13 12:49
- The power of post hoc power ElMaestro 2015-05-13 17:53
  - Ad hoc power d_labes 2015-05-13 20:18
    - Ad hoc power The Outlaw Torn 2015-05-14 11:38
      - Ad hoc power The Outlaw Torn 2015-06-15 11:20
        
        Hypotheses in non-inferiority trials mittyri 2015-06-16 21:52
        
        Hypotheses in non-inferiority trialsThe Outlaw Torn 2015-06-17 11:35
        
        Hypotheses in non-inferiority trials d_labes 2015-06-18 10:17
        
        Hypotheses in non-inferiority trials The Outlaw Torn 2015-06-22 10:23
        
        Hypotheses in non-inferiority trials arjunroy 2015-06-29 08:24