Small is beautiful [🇷 for BE/BA]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2010-06-15 18:54 (5484 d 20:20 ago) – Posting: # 5524
Views: 12,403

Dear D. Labes!

❝ Let me expand your table: ...

❝ Is this what you expected to see?


Not really. Of course the estimate approaches asymptotically the fixed value, but I expected some kind of award for performing a larger pilot study. A larger pilot gives me a 'better' estimate and therefore the size of the main study will be smaller. But if I add the sample sizes of pilot and main studies, I'm disapointed. See the end of my post.

❝ Of course this tells us a well known study: Pilots with smaller than 12 subjects are not very useful.


OK, right - common sense, supported by PowerTOST. It's interesting that there is a minimum total sample size - very useful!

❝ For your second concern

❝ ❝ for higher CVs, the size of the pilot study becomes more and more irrelevant?!

❝ I do not get exactly your point. "Small" and "large" pilot study is not so well defined here I think.


Let's look at the 30% CV example. If the pilot study had 12 subjects I would plan the main study for 48. In a 24 pilot I get a better estimate and plan the main in only 42. But I'm punished, because the total sample size (pilot+main) will be 66 instead of 60. This speaks against my pet hypothesis. I learned from your table that there seems to be an optimal pilot sample size (if the total size is concerned), namely for CV 20% 8-10, CV 25% 10-12, CV 30% 12-14, and CV 35% 14-16...

❝ BTW: Be so kind and enlighten a non-latin educated person about Sancta.


Invocationing Guru Stephen in English: Saint Juliuos, stay by me!

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
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,672 registered users;
36 visitors (0 registered, 36 guests [including 8 identified bots]).
Forum time: 15:14 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Medical researches can be divided into two sorts:
those who think that meta is better and those
who believe that pooling is fooling.    Stephen Senn

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