Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum

An other one with 0.0304 [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2015-12-03 17:15 (3489 d 06:18 ago) – Posting: # 15696
Views: 15,952

Dear Helmut,

❝ ... I think that Kieser/Rauch are correct in their lament about one- vs. two-sided Pocock’s limits. They argue for 0.0304 (which Jones/Kenward² used in chapter 13 as well). Jennison/Turnbull give C_p (K=2, α=0.10) 1.875:

❝ rep(1-pnorm(1.875), 2)

❝ [1] 0.03039636 0.03039636

I have another one:
Gould A. L.
"Group Sequential Extensions of a Standard Bioequivalence Testing Procedure"
Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics. Vol 23. No.1. 1995
Table I: critical value for n1=n2: 1.8753

Seems I have to change my personal preference stated in my post above.

That means on the other hand: Potvin und Konsorten were much more lucky then they should have been.
Thats great .

Complete thread:

• Adaptive TSD vs. “classical” GSD Helmut 2015-11-27 19:05 
  • Adaptive TSD vs. “classical” GSD ElMaestro 2015-11-27 19:54
  • “classical” GSD - E[n] d_labes 2015-11-30 11:15
    • Apples are pears by comparing the weight Helmut 2015-12-01 16:35
      • Apples are pears by comparing the weight d_labes 2015-12-03 09:16
        • Apples are pears by comparing the weight Helmut 2015-12-03 13:10
          • Oranges d_labes 2015-12-03 13:56
  • Adaptive TSD vs. “classical” GSD Ben 2015-12-02 19:27
    • Adaptive TSD vs. “classical” GSD Helmut 2015-12-03 03:11
      • “classical” GSD alpha's d_labes 2015-12-03 09:47
        • N sufficiently large‽ Helmut 2015-12-03 14:56
          • An other one with 0.0304d_labes 2015-12-03 16:15
            • An other one with 0.0304 Helmut 2015-12-03 16:26
      • Adaptive TSD vs. “classical” GSD Ben 2016-01-10 12:43