different results from diff. software? [Power / Sample Size]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2009-01-07 00:48 (6377 d 23:22 ago) – Posting: # 3002
Views: 3,878

Dear Jo!

❝ [...] intraCV for Cmax of 34%.

❝ Sample size [...] after statistical calculation was of 36 subjects.

❝ The sponsor [...] showed [...] different software, obtaining [...] 48 subjects.

❝ Who is right in this case?


For ±5% deviation of test from reference and 80% power using exact methods I'm getting 50 subjects (because the calculated sample size is slightly larger than 48 and must be rounded up to the next even number) according to the R code given in this post (with this modification; also implemented in package bear), in StudySize 2.0.1, and in FARTSSIE 1.6.
Approximations (Hauschke et al. (1992), Chow & Wang (2001); references) come up with 50 subjects also.

How did you get 36?
I'm getting 36 for T/R=100% and 75% power. 100% is too optimistic, and 75% power leads to 25% producer's risk... :-(

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, 1,570 registered users;
133 visitors (0 registered, 133 guests [including 24 identified bots]).
Forum time: 01:10 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Scientists often have a naïve faith that
if only they could discover enough facts about a problem,
these facts would somehow arrange themselves
in a compelling and true solution.    Theodosius Dobzhansky

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