Post-hoc power is useless! [Study As­sess­ment]

posted by DavidManteigas – Portugal, 2016-08-09 15:51 (3602 d 11:03 ago) – Posting: # 16546
Views: 9,619

Dear Detlew,

If post-hoc power is useless why power calculations are used in Potvin methods for sequential designs?

There is nothing wrong with post-hoc power calculations imo. What is wrong is the conclusions you take from it and if you look at post-hoc power alone to justify a failure. As I stated, for studies that fail to demonstrate bioequivalence a lot other methods to "dig" into the failure could be used. As El Maestro stated GMRs and CVs may be more informative alone, but in fact I believe they all provide a similar conclusion. When I look at post-hoc power, GMRs and CVs what I'm trying to check is if the problem was in the formulation or in the number of subjects included in the study.

That being said, power calculations or CVs alone are not the way I use to check data for explanation of failures. As I stated, I like to check individual ratios and to perform sensitivity analysis by removing "extreme" subjects and check how the overall conclusion is affected. Sometimes, the explanation for those failures may be in those extreme subjects and discussions with clinical operations may unleash some problems not evident from the data collected. Pooling data from several studies in the same unit is also useful to check for potential "trends" in outlying values, although I never had the opportunity to do that.

Regards,

David

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,655 posts in 4,993 threads, 1,570 registered users;
157 visitors (0 registered, 157 guests [including 35 identified bots]).
Forum time: 02:55 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Science is simply common sense at its best that is,
rigidly accurate in observation, and
merciless to fallacy in logic.    Thomas Henry Huxley

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