adjusted alpha = 0.045 [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2012-08-03 13:33 (4706 d 06:07 ago) – Posting: # 9029
Views: 14,906

Dear Helmut!

Very well elaborated post. THX.

❝ It’s also clear from the table that in some scenarios αemp. was substantially below 0.05 – indicating that 0.0294 was lower than necessary. Of course no problems with risk I, but the penalty one has to pay in terms of the sample size is too high. See for example αemp. for n1 12, CVintra 10%: Method C 0.0496, D 0.0498, but B 0.0297

❝ In other words, if you opt for Method B in this scenario you could increase αadj. and still maintain αemp. ≤0.05. For αadj. 0.045 (!), Method B, 106 simulations I got αemp. 0.04501 and 1–βemp. 98.69%. In this case (only ~1% of studies went to stage 2), the penalty in Method B is too high.


Wow! Cough :smoke: ... Very interesting result.
Where did the αadj.=0.045 came from? Luckily guess? Or some Hermetism?

Regards,

Detlew

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,673 registered users;
48 visitors (0 registered, 48 guests [including 13 identified bots]).
Forum time: 19:41 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