Post hoc power & other things… [Design Issues]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2013-02-22 15:15 (4875 d 01:34 ago) – Posting: # 10107
Views: 7,992

Dear Ken!

❝ ❝ Post hoc power is completely irrelevant in bioequivalence. Either you demonstrated BE or not. Full :stop:. Unfortunately the Malaysian authority asks for post hoc power sometimes (or always?). It’s time for them to learn. ;-)


❝ Yes, it is a requirement. Please refer to Guidelines on Bioequivalence, 7.Bioequivalence Reporting Format (under 9.4) http://portal.bpfk.gov.my/index.cfm?&menuid=122.


Fantastic! Another example where a GL mandates nonsense. However, I cannot find a requirement that post hoc power has to be ≥80%. So, report it based on the study’s T/R-ratio and CVintra in order to make BPFK happy. If they reject a study which has demonstrated BE (CI within acceptance range) based on power <80% consider going to court.
Section 9.4 contains another stupidity: Summary of statistical significance for AUC and Cmax.
In BE we accept 20% as clinically irrelevant. If a study has high power (most likely if the CV is low and/or the T/R-ratio is close to 100%) we might get a statistically significant difference. Again, reporting this outcome is nonsense. See this thread and especially this example.

❝ Where can we learn how to run PowerTOST ? Please advise.


See this post. The help-system will give you all the necessary steps. At the end of each page you find examples. If you are interested in the statistical background see BE_power_sample_size_excerpt.pdf in the folder PowerTOST/doc.

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
23,656 posts in 4,994 threads, 1,570 registered users;
267 visitors (0 registered, 267 guests [including 29 identified bots]).
Forum time: 17:49 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Most scientists today are devoid of ideas, full of fear, intent on
producing some paltry result so that they can add to the flood
of inane papers that now constitutes “scientific progress”
in many areas.    Paul Feyerabend

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