Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum

Potvin C with unsymmetrical alphas [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2011-10-27 16:54 (5352 d 04:05 ago) – Posting: # 7555
Views: 21,736

Dear ElMaestro,

❝ Hmmmm I get really uncertain now. I think you will hafta go with the 0.5489 value and procced to st. 2 with n=36 then?!?

No. My decision would be 'stay with stage 1'.

❝ This isn't simple .

I think so .

❝ Why don't we discuss method C in stead where the authors make a clear discussion between alpha1 and alpha2; it is for many practical purposes performing just like method B anyway, at least under the conditions tested by Potvin .

That's my bonus question from above.
I can not see the 'clear discussion' for alpha1 and alpha2 in the Potvin et al. paper. May be I'm some sort of blind .

For the acceptance of Potvin C see this post.
Oh, I see you have noticed it already.

Complete thread:

• 2-stage design - power evaluation d_labes 2011-10-12 11:10 
  • No opinions out there? d_labes 2011-10-26 09:14
    • Opinion yes, answer no ElMaestro 2011-10-26 11:15
      • Decision scheme without (?) power check d_labes 2011-10-26 13:00
        • Decision scheme without (?) power check ElMaestro 2011-10-26 13:20
          • Decision scheme 'without' power check d_labes 2011-10-26 14:51
            • Decision scheme 'without' power check ElMaestro 2011-10-26 15:24
              • Numerical example d_labes 2011-10-26 16:28
                • Numerical example ElMaestro 2011-10-26 16:49
                  • Potvin C with unsymmetrical alphasd_labes 2011-10-27 14:54
                    • Potvin B, C, or D? Helmut 2011-10-27 22:52
                    • Two-stage (classical Pocock) and the FDA Helmut 2011-10-31 02:36
  • Weirdo paper ElMaestro 2011-11-30 18:04
    • Weirdo paper Helmut 2011-11-30 23:45
      • Weirdo paper ElMaestro 2011-12-01 07:16