“Type 1” slightly higher power than “Type 2” for the same adj. α [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2017-02-18 12:51 (2990 d 04:41 ago) – Posting: # 17081
Views: 15,525

Hi BE-proff,

I agree with ElMaestro.

❝ 2) Why Method C is considered "better" for sponsors than Method B?


Unfortunately there is an „inflation” of letters denoting methods.
Therefore, I suggested* to use “Type 1” (B, E, …) and “Type 2” (C, D, C/D, F, …) instead.

“Type 1”

[image]


“Type 2”

[image]


In “Type 2” TSDs the conventional (unadjusted) α 0.05 may be used in the first stage (dependent on interim power). Hence, under certain conditions you have a decent chance to stop already in the first stage with no sample size penalty (due to the mandatory adjusted α in “Type 1” TSDs).

Potvin et al. recommended Method C over B due to its higher power. Examples (power by the noncentral t-approximation):

n1 CV (%)   B      C   
12   10   0.97697 0.98858
24   20   0.88046 0.90882
36   30   0.83704 0.84676
48   40   0.82901 0.82838
60   50   0.82477 0.82405




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, 1,668 registered users;
18 visitors (0 registered, 18 guests [including 8 identified bots]).
Forum time: 18:32 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

It is true that many scientists are not philosophically minded
and have hitherto shown much skill and ingenuity
but little wisdom.    Max Born

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