Oops! [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2011-02-07 17:47 (5249 d 00:58 ago) – Posting: # 6570
Views: 26,778

Dear D. Labes!

❝ According to their formula given in paragraph 2.3 they use the approximation via central shifted Student's t-distribution, …

❝ Check it via the undocumented and hidden function … :cool:


Ah, funny.

❝ But what you discuss was not my point, I think.


I know - and knew. I was carried away be reading the paper again and to be honest for the first time I recalculated the examples.

❝ Or was your first sentence already the answer?


Come on! :smoke:

❝ I need to know the power of Potvin B/C if I assume 'true' GMR=1.08, 'true' CV = 0.3 for instance.


Sure. I’m a little bit confused right now, because it seems that I misunderstood the decision procedure. Until you came up with your nice question I thought that the power calculation is done on the actual PE of stage 1 (1.08, not 0.95) and only the sample size calculation is done with 0.95 (no adaption for effect size). From the examples the former is not true – both are done with 0.95. Now I'm stuck. Potvin’s simulations were done with 0.95; is it that simple to use e.g. 0.90 instead?

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, 1,673 registered users;
45 visitors (0 registered, 45 guests [including 8 identified bots]).
Forum time: 19:46 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